State v. Snider

• Citation: 145 S.E. 607,106 W.Va. 309
• Decision Date: 13 November 1928
• Docket Number: 6120.
• Parties: STATE v. SNIDER et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

145 S.E. 607

106 W.Va. 309

STATE v. SNIDER et al.

No. 6120.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

November 13, 1928

Submitted November 13, 1928.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where circumstantial evidence is relied on to sustain a conviction the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless the fact of guilt is proven to the actual exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

A case in which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of possession of moonshine liquor.

Error to Circuit Court, Gilmer County.

C. P Snider and another were convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and they bring error. Reversed, verdict set aside, and new trial awarded.

R. F Kidd, of Glenville, for plaintiffs in error.

WOODS J.

From a conviction in the circuit court of Gilmer county upon a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, the defendants-a prosperous farmer, owning several hundreds of acres of land, and his son-bring error. The state made no appearance in this court in defense of the judgment.

Trial testimony showed that the two quarts of liquor involved in this case were concealed in the woods on the father's farm at a point shown to be, according to actual measurement, 570 feet away from the dwelling house; that the containers thereof were found near an old log, and were covered over with leaves; that the dwelling and the woods were both contiguous to the state highway; that the woods being close to the town of Glenville was a favorite resort for hunters; and that the point where the liquor was found was easily accessible to others without the owner's knowledge or consent. The discovery of this liquor was the result of a careful search of some 40 or more acres of land after the officers had failed to find any evidence within the curtilage, except the presence of a copper can, which they explained might, with other proper fittings, be used in making liquor. The presence of this can on the farm, and its use, are, we believe, satisfactorily accounted for, not only by the family, but by disinterested witnesses. For some time after this can was found and brought to the house by two of the younger children, it commanded a position on the cellar walk near a much-frequented well and in sight of the public road, and, according to the members of the family, was at the time of the search being used in transporting crude oil from an oil well on a neighboring farm. While one of the officers making the search states that the wife of the household told her son "to go and throw that old can out of there [the smokehouse] that they [the officers] might make some trouble out of it," this loses its force, in view of the fact that the alleged statement was made at a time when she was filled with apprehension and alarm at the sudden descent upon the place by the officers.

Is the verdict sustained by sufficient evidence? Can we say that the jury was justified in finding, beyond all...