State v. Sheppard
| Decision Date | 07 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4160.,4160. |
| Citation | 294 S.W. 121 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHEPPARD. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; E. P. Dorris, Special Judge.
Opie Sheppard was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Von Mayes, of Caruthersville, for appellant.
Sam Corbett, Pros. Atty., of Caruthersville, for the State.
Prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in Pemiscot county. The venue was changed to New Madrid county, where upon trial by jury a verdict of guilty was rendered and defendant's punishment assessed at a fine of $1,000 and 6 months in jail. Defendant appealed.
Defendant demurred to the evidence of the state, which was overruled. The substance of the state's evidence, briefly stated, is as follows: In September, 1925, officers armed with a search warrant found intoxicating liquor in a small building a short distance in the rear of defendant's place of business in Hayti, in Pemiscot county. The issue, at the trial was as to whether the defendant was in possession of the building at the time the intoxicating liquor was found in it. The liquor found consisted of about 17 dozen half-pint bottles of home brew, several bottles of corn whisky, and a tub full of bottles of home brew beer on ice. Some empty bottles were found in defendant's store under a counter, and on the outside at the back of the store some empty beer bottles were found in a carton, and these latter bottles were cold when found. They were all the same kind of bottles as those found full of beer on ice in the house further back. Another search of the same premises had been made in May, 1925, at which time about 20 gallons of home brew, shown to be intoxicating, was found in the same building in which the liquor was found in September, 1925. A short time before the search in May, 1925, was made, another search of the same building was made, and at that time defendant had admitted that he was then in possession of the building, and when asked for the key to it said he had left it at home but would go get it for the officer who had the search warrant. He went away, ostensibly to get the key, but did not return. Empty bottles but no liquor was found in the house at that time.
The fact that empty bottles were found in defendant's store and bottles of the same kind were found in a carton just outside the rear of the store that were cold when found, and at the same time bottles of the same kin I filled with beer were found on ice in the small building in the rear of the store, is a chain of circumstances that tends to show that all these bottles were under the control of the defendant at that time. When we add to this the fact that he had previously admitted his possession of the building in the rear by admitting that be had the key to its door in his possession, we think...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harper
...court did not err in giving Instruction 4. State v. Dooms, 280 Mo. 84, 217 S.W. 43; State v. Wilson, 122 S.W. 701, 223 Mo. 156; State v. Sheppard, 294 S.W. 121. (4) The evidence this case was sufficient to support the verdict. State v. Cohen, 100 S.W.2d 544. Bohling, C. Westhues and Barrett......
-
State v. Freeman
...the jury of the fact that the state has the burden of proving the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Sheppard (Ct.App., Mo.), 294 S.W. 121. Appellants assign as error the failure of the trial court to define the term 'reasonable doubt' in its instructions to the jury. T......
-
State v. Wray
...no source of refrigeration. This suggested they had recently been taken from refrigeration, possibly at a store. See State v. Sheppard, 294 S.W. 121, 122 (Mo.App.1927) (cold beer bottles found near a building containing such bottles on ice was circumstantial evidence linking the beer bottle......
- State v. Kurtz