State v. Peace
Decision Date | 31 January 1927 |
Docket Number | 28344 |
Citation | 163 La. 121,111 So. 621 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. PEACE |
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier; E. P Mills, Judge.
C. Lee Peace was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Murff & Perkins, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., and L. C. Blanchard, Dist. Atty., and A M. Pyburn, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, for the State.
OPINION
The accused was charged with selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, one of the offenses denounced by the Hood Act (Act No. 39 of 1921). It is alleged in the information that the accused had been previously convicted of the offense of manufacturing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, and he was therefore amenable to the increased fine and penalty authorized by the act for second offenders of its provisions. The trial resulted in the conviction of the accused and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 500 and to serve a sentence of six months in the parish jail, and, upon the nonpayment of the fine, to serve an additional term offour months in the parish jail. From the verdict and sentence he appealed.
Preceding the trial, the accused moved to strike out of the information the paragraph alleging him to be a second offender of the provisions of the statute. The motion is based upon the assumption that manufacturing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes is a separate and distinct offense from selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. This court has recently held that although the manufacture, the sale, and the having in possession for sale, of intoxicating liquor, for beverage purposes, are distinct offenses, nevertheless, they are so grouped in the statute that a conviction of either will warrant the court, in a subsequent prosecution for either of the three offenses named, if the information properly alleges the previous conviction, to impose the fine and penalty authorized by the statute for second offenders of its provisions.
We think the ruling referred to is correct and should be adhered to. Therefore the motion to strike out was properly overruled.
Section 3 of Act 39 of 1921 is as follows:
"That any person who shall violate the provisions of this act by manufacturing, or having in possession, for sale, or, by selling intoxicating liquors [for beverage purposes] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction for the first offense shall be fined not more than five hundred ($ 500.00) dollars and be imprisoned not less than ten days nor more than sixty days, and for the second or subsequent offense, shall be fined not less than one hundred ($ 100.00) dollars, nor more than one thousand ($ 1,000.00) dollars, and be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than twelve months."
Similar statutes have been interpreted by the courts of our sister states, and one of the leading cases on the question here raised is State v. Sawyer, 67 Vt. 239, 31 A. 285. In that case the Supreme Court of Vermont said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cass
... ... punishment on crimes for which he had already been convicted ... and punished. * * * ... "'But ... it does no such thing. * * * The punishment is for the new ... crime only, but is the heavier if he is an habitual ... criminal.' ... "See, ... also, State v. Peace, 163 La. [121] 124, 111 So ... 621; State v. Guidry, 169 La. [215] 218, 222, 223, 124 So ... Act No ... 15 of 1928 § 2 provides: ... "A person, to be punishable under this and the preceding ... section, need not have been indicted and convicted as a ... previous ... ...
-
State v. Williams
...reversed on other grounds, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409; State v. Guidry, 169 La. 215, 124 So. 832 (1929); State v. Peace, 163 La. 121, 111 So. 621 (1927). These principles in effect at the time of its adoption make it clear to us that the new constitution refers to 'criminal ......
-
State v. Hardy
...no such thing. * * * The punishment is for the new crime only, but is the heavier if he is an habitual criminal." See, also, State v. Peace, 163 La. 121, 111 So. 621; State v. Guidry, 169 La. 215, 222, 223, 124 So. Bill of Exceptions No. 2. This bill was reserved to the overruling of a moti......
-
State v. Guidry
... ... Sess.) said: ... "The ... question raised by counsel as to whether the infliction of a ... heavier penalty as a second offender is a placing of the ... accused twice in jeopardy for the same offense is answered by ... the following authorities: [See citations State v. Peace, 163 ... La. 121, 111 So. 621.]" ... In his ... motion to quash the defendant attacks the constitutionality ... of the statute (Act No. 15 of 1928) on various grounds. The ... first is that the title is broader than the body of the act ... and that the act is broader than its title ... ...