State v. Powell, 22825.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 22825. |
| Citation | 297 P. 160,161 Wash. 514 |
| Parties | STATE v. POWELL |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C. Bell, Judge.
George Guy Powell was convicted of bootlegging, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Anderson & Richards and Earl W. Husted, all of Everett, for appellant.
Charles R. Denney, of Everett, for the State.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced in the lower court of the crime of bootlegging, a previous conviction of a violation of the prohibition law being at the same time alleged of a conviction of a misdemeanor in the same court.
Although there is some conflict in the evidence, appellant having made a somewhat plausible explanation of his connection with the transaction, he was disbelieved and the jury accepted the evidence on behalf of the state. That evidence, briefly stated, tended to show that on the night of April 4, 1930 two prohibition agents became acquainted with two men named Donnelly and Johnson and made arrangements with them to secure a delivery of whisky from them. Two deputy sheriffs hid in the back of the agents' car, and after meeting Donnelly and Johnson the agents were told to follow Donnelly's Ford car, and after doing so for some time they stopped. Donnelly and Johnson left in their Ford car, and a short time later Johnson returned in their car and, after waiting for some time appellant drove up in a Dodge car accompanied by Donnelly. Donnelly bargained with the agents in the presence of appellant about the price of the whisky. Ten gallons of so-called Bourbon whisky was finally agreed to be sold and ten gallons of moonshine whisky at somewhat different prices. The twenty gallons of whisky was found in the Donnelly car driven by appellant. When the bargain had been consummated the deputy sheriffs got out of the back of the agents' car, and appellant, together with Donnelly and Johnson, were arrested. The twenty gallons of liquor were carried by appellant and Donnelly in appellant's car to the place where they were to be delivered.
All the complaints of appellant are presented without any citation of authority in support thereof.
The chief contention of appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to prove bootlegging for the reason that the connection of appellant with the liquor was limited to one delivery.
We have many times had before us for consideration the prohibition statute defining bootlegging. It forbids the carrying about of intoxicataing liquor for the purpose of sale. It does not state that the carrying about must be from place to place and for the purpose of making promiscuous sales, or that the intent to make sales promiscuously must be shown. In the instant case the evidence is overwhelming that twenty gallons of whisky were carried about; that an arrangement had been made to sell it to the federal agents, which unquestionably proved an intent to sell that whisky.
The latest expression by this court is in State v. Ragan, 157 Wash. 130, 288 P. 218, where we sustained a conviction of bootlegging where the evidence showed a delivery by the accused of a large quantity of liquor to an officer in pursuance of an agreement between them and only one delivery was made.
Other cases where somewhat similar conditions are found are State v. Gleen, 135 Wash. 153, 237 P. 292; State v. Gumm, 141 Wash. 355, 251 P. 273; State v. Presta, 142 Wash. 539, 253 P. 811; State v. Peck, 146 Wash. 101, 261 P. 779; State v. Bowen, 150 Wash. 136, 272 P. 48; Id., 154 Wash. 23, 280 P. 490; State v. Boyd, 150 Wash. 326, 272 P. 964.
Appellant complains of the admission in evidence of testimony to the effect that the clothing of appellant smelled of mash at the time of his arrest. That was a circumstance to be considered by the jury for what it was deemed worth in connecting appellant with the liquor in the car. It was not error to admit such testimony.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huber
...rare cases, depending on need, the State may even call the former defense attorney or former judge. Defense attorney: State v. Powell, 161 Wash. 514, 517, 297 P. 160 (1931) (defense attorney in prior prosecution can identify person convicted therein as person now on trial, at least where de......
-
Mauch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...C.C., 107 F. 702, at page 704." Tomlinson v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 106, 93 F.2d 652, 655, 114 A.L.R. 1315. See also, State v. Powell, 161 Wash. 514, 297 P. 160. In addition to these contentions going to the entire case, petitioner has minor objections to some details of the deficiencie......
-
Gold v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7185-80.
...C.C., 107 F. 702, at page 704. Tomlinson v. United States, 68 App. D.C. 106, 93 F. 2d 652, 655, 114 A.L.R. 1315. See also, State v. Powell, 161 Wash. 514, 297 P. 160. Similarly, in the instant case we do not accept petitioner's explanation that the Treasury bills and notes were purchased fo......
-
State v. Hofer
...cert. denied 498 U.S. 1001, 111 S.Ct. 563, 112 L.Ed.2d 570 (1990); Rand v. Ladd, 238 Iowa 380, 26 N.W.2d 107 (1947); State v. Powell, 161 Wash. 514, 297 P. 160 (1931). A communication is considered "confidential" if it is "not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to wh......