State v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 08 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 3103.,3103. |
| Parties | STATE v. PERKINS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Phelps County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.
William Perkins was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. Ellis Walker, Pros. Atty., of Rolla, for the State.
The defendant in this case was charged under section 6588, R. S. of Mo. 1919, as amended by the Acts of the General Assembly of 1921 and approved March 28, 1921 (Laws 1921, p. 413). The information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Phelps county charged that on the 2d day of July, 1921, the defendant willfully and unlawfully transported intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, to wit, one pint of whisky, from a place unknown to the prosecuting attorney to a place certain in the state of Missouri. The information further charges that the intoxicating liquor was potable and capable of being used for beverage purposes, contained more than one-half of 1 per cent. alcohol, and was not being used by said William Perkins for any lawful purpose. The information apparently contains all of the necessary elements to charge the crime contained in the statute referred to.
The evidence on the part of the state clearly shows that the defendant was seen carrying a bundle under his arm, and when being followed by a citizen of the town of Newburg he went into a stable and in a manger broke the bottles contained in the bundle under his arm. This witness picked up parts of the bundle of broken glass, some parts of the bottles still containing some of the fluid, described by the witness as "white mule." Inference can be clearly drawn from the evidence that the defendant was carrying under his arm bottles containing alcohol, which could be used for beverage purposes; one of the witnesses testifying that he drank some out of the broken bottles and identifying it as whisky. The only evidence offered by the defendant was testimony showing that the prosecuting witness was of bad reputation, which, was overwhelmingly met by witnesses for the state in rebuttal.
To begin with, we want to commend the action of the prosecuting attorney in this case for having filed in this court an abstract of the record and a brief covering the points which he thought might be raised by the appellant. The prosecuting attorney in this cause evidently followed the mandates of section 736, R. S. of Mo. 1919, which makes it his duty to print an abstract of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stewart
... ... 34; State v ... Berry, 255 S.W. 337; State v. Smith et al., 261 ... S.W. 696; State v. Patterson, 222 S.W. 882; ... State v. Cantrell, 234 S.W. 800, 290 Mo. 232. (3) ... (a) The evidence on the count charging possession of ... intoxicating liquor is sufficient State v. Perkins, ... 240 S.W. 851; State v. Clark, 256 S.W. 554; ... State v. Heilman, 246 S.W. 623; State v ... Hale, 256 S.W. 1092; State v. Kiely, 255 S.W ... 343. (b) The trial court properly received the evidence that ... the liquor which had been in defendant's possession made ... several ... ...
-
State v. Fenley
...which sets forth all of the constituent elements of the crime. Section 6588, R. S. 1919, as amended Laws 1921, p. 414; State v. Perkins (Mo. App.) 240 S. W. 851; State v. Bersch, 276 Mo. loc. cit. 412, 207 S. W. However, further objection is urged to the indictment in that it charges the ac......
-
State v. Clark
... ... appellate court will not undertake to pass upon the weight of ... the evidence in a criminal case unless there was no ... substantial evidence to justify the verdict. State v ... Hires, 245 S.W. 573; State v. Rhoades, 245 S.W ... 580; State v. Morris, 245 S.W. 587; State v ... Perkins", 240 S.W. 851; State v. Daugherty, 250 ... S.W. 957; State v. Manuel, 204 S.W. 555; State ... v. Sayman, 103 Mo.App. 141; State v. Day, 100 ... Mo. 242; State v. Huff, 164 Mo. 480 ... BRADLEY, ... J. Cox, P. J., and Bailey, J., concur ... ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Gooch
...State v. Fenley (Mo. Sup.) 275 S. W. loc. cit. 43; State v. Stanley (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. loc. cit. 140, and cases cited; State v. Perkins (Mo. App.) 240 S. W. 851. Under proposition I of their "points and authorities," of their reply brief, appellants assert that "no point is made as to the......