State v. Quiram
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 6683.,6683. |
| Citation | 52 S.D. 615,219 N.W. 830 |
| Parties | STATE v. QUIRAM. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jerauld County; R. C. Bakewell, Judge.
William Quiram was convicted of making intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, and he appeals. Affirmed.Kelley & Luby, of Huron, and Chas. R. Hatch, of Wessington Springs, for appellant.
Buell F. Jones, Atty. Gen., and Bernard A. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
[1] Appellant was convicted of making intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The evidence shows that, about sundown on July 10th, at his home in Beadle county, appellant was told by one Palmer that he was “going to run off a batch” of moonshine that night; that, between 10 and 11 o'clock p. m., defendant reached Palmer's place about 15 miles distant, having had two punctures on the way over, and driving the last mile on the rim. When he got there, Palmer was running off some whisky in a cave a few rods from Palmer's house. It took appellant about a half hour to fix his tire. He was in the cave with Palmer about half an hour, went with Palmer to the well for water, was with Palmer when he pumped the water, walked back with Palmer when he carried it to the cave, was at the door of the cave two or three times more, took lunch with Palmer and his wife about 1 o'clock in the morning, and, when the officers arrived between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, appellant was standing at the door of the cave. When he saw the officers, he started to run, and, after running about eight rods, he stumbled and hid behind some weeds. There the flashlight was thrown upon him by the sheriff; and he was arrested. At the time the officers got there, about three quarts of moonshine whisky had been made; the stove was hot; and two half-barrels of mash were just outside the door of the cave. Palmer says no more was made that night, because the stove “went out” before the officers arrived. Appellant testified that he drove over to Palmer's place, at Palmer's invitation, to get a drink; that he was in the cave twice that night while Palmer was making the whisky; that he went with Palmer to the well twice while Palmer got four pails of water and took them to the cave; that he did not drink any because it was too hot and not good; that, after waiting from about 10 p. m. until about 2 a. m., he decided not to wait any longer, and was about to leave when the officers came. In explaining his presence to the officers at the time, he said:
“I told them I didn't have nothing to do with it, and Carson (the sheriff) said, ‘Like hell you haven't,’ in a rough voice, and I didn't say any more to him or he to me.”
Mrs. Palmer testified that, after serving the men their lunch about 1 o'clock, she lay down and went to sleep, and that, after that, appellant was not in the house.
Excepting as above stated, the evidence does not show that accused performed any of the immediate acts of manufacture. Is such watchful waiting and encouragement sufficient to support a verdict of guilty under section 10244, Rev. Code? Under that section, it is unlawful to aid in making intoxicating liquors. Furthermore, section 3594, Rev. Code, is as follows:
“All persons concerned in the commission of crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present are principals.”
See, also, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial