State v. Sandoe
Decision Date | 20 December 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 27052.,27052. |
Citation | 289 S.W. 890 |
Parties | STATE v. SANDOE. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, McDonald County; Charles L. Henson, Judge.
George Sandoe was convicted of the illegal manufacture of liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
O. R. Puckett, of Pineville, for appellant.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and H. O. Harrawood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Statement.
On December 8, 1925, the prosecuting attorney of McDonald county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county a verified information, which, omitting formal parts, reads as follows:
Both defendants waived a formal arraignment and entered their pleas of not guilty. On the date aforesaid a trial was had before a jury and the following verdict returned:
On the date aforesaid, both defendants filed their respective motions for a new trial, which were overruled. Thereafter the court granted each of said defendants allocution on the date aforesaid, entered judgment, pronounced sentence on each defendant separately, and each was granted an appeal to this court. The case of State v. Gillespie is separately briefed and numbered in this court 27330.
Counsel for the defendant in this case have made a very brief and argumentative statement of the facts, which we cannot accept. On the other hand, counsel for the state have made a very full and fair statement, which we adopt as follows:
Opinion.I. The information containing two counts is heretofore set out. The first count of same, under which defendant stands convicted, is sufficient as to both form and substance. State v. Addington (Mo. Sup.) 285 S. W. 736; Kinney v. State (Mo. Sup.) 285 S. W. 87; State v. Tom Wright (Mo. Sup.) 280 S. W. 703; State v. Bostic (Mo. Sup.) 285 S. W. 432; State v. Griffith, 311 Mo. 630, 279 S. W. 135; State v. Moore, 311 Mo. 531, 270 S. W. 131; State v. Brown (Mo. Sup.) 285 S. W. 995; State v. Bauer (Mo. Sup.) 285 S. W. 82.
II. The first two grounds in the motion, for a new trial may be considered together. They charge that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence, against the weight of the evidence, and contrary to the law as declared by the court. It is unnecessary to consider at length these propositions. The evidence heretofore set out is conclusive as to appellant's guilt and especially so in considering a demurrer thereto. This assignment of error is without merit and overruled.
III. The third assignment in the motion for a new trial charges that defendant should have been acquitted for the following reasons:
(a) "There was no evidence given or offered by the state proving or tending to prove when, if ever, the alleged offense was committed by defendant, or to show that the information in said case had been filed within three years after the offense was alleged to have been committed."
The record proper discloses that the information herein was filed on November 7, 1925. It charges defendant with the violation of the liquor law on or about October 30, 1925. On the facts stated, the information was filed promptly and in ample time. The testimony of L. R. Smith, sheriff of McDonald county, Mo., and others who were with him, tends to show that on October 30, 1925, defendant was unlawfully making whisky in McDonald county, Mo. Sheriff Smith testified on this subject as follows:
Defendant was engaged in the business of making whisky when arrested on October 30, 1925. The foregoing contention of appellant is without merit.
(b) It is insisted in said assignment 3 that: "There was no evidence given or offered by the state proving or tending to prove the intoxicating liquor alleged to have been made by defendant was corn whisky."
Sheriff Smith testified that he tasted the whisky in controversy and that it was corn whisky. The evidence conclusively disclosed that defendant was engaged in unlawfully manufacturing whisky in McDonald county, Mo., on October 30, 1925. It was immaterial whether he was making corn whisky, as he was guilty if he made any kind of whisky on said occasion. State v. Tom Wright (Mo. Sup.) 280...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... likely to occur in the known course of things, and is not ... negligent in so doing. State ex rel. Lusk v ... Ellison, 271 Mo. 473; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 167 ... Mo. 645; American B. Assn. v. Talbot, 141 Mo. 684; ... Anderson v ... ...
-
Gabelman v. Bolt
... ... Fisher, 61 Mo.App. 509; ... Peck v. Springfield Traction Co., 131 Mo.App. 134; ... Belk v. Stewart, 160 Mo.App. 706; State v ... Shipley, 174 Mo. 512; Dean v. Chandler, 44 ... Mo.App. 338; Skinner v. Stifel, 55 Mo.App. 9; Sec ... 967, R. S. 1929. (5) The court ... ...
-
Gabelman v. Bolt
... ... Cape Girardeau v. Fisher, 61 Mo. App. 509; Peck v. Springfield Traction Co., 131 Mo. App. 134; Belk v. Stewart, 160 Mo. App. 706; State v. Shipley, 174 Mo. 512; Dean v. Chandler, 44 Mo. App. 338; Skinner v. Stifel, 55 Mo. App. 9; Sec. 967, R.S. 1929. (5) The court erred in ruling and ... ...
-
State v. Rowe
... ... State v. Gurnee, 309 Mo. 16, 274 S.W. 58; State v. Hubbard, 295 S.W. 790; State v. Robinett, 312 Mo. 641, 281 S.W. 29; State v. Hadlock, 316 Mo. 7, 289 S.W. 945; State v. Sandoe, 316 Mo. 65, 289 S.W. 890. (6) Testimony of the prosecuting witness, as to statements made by persons claimed to have been acting for the defendant in the commission of crime was admissible. State v. Pollnow, 14 S.W. (2d) 574; State v. Pugh, 296 S.W. 138. (7) The record discloses that no ... ...