State v. St. Clair
| Decision Date | 29 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 3269.,3269. |
| Citation | 247 S.W. 203 |
| Parties | STATE v. ST. CLAIR. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; Fred Stewart, Judge.
Ralph St. Clair was convicted of selling and possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed.
Curtis & Vandeventer, of Hartville, for appellant.
The defendant appealed from a judgment convicting him of selling and possessing intoxicating liquor under the prohibition law of the state. Error is assigned because of a failure of evidence showing guilt. We agree with appellant that there is a total failure of proof that intoxicating liquor was sold or possessed by him.
The evidence shows that state's witness Gardner was asked by state's witness Shippman if he knew where they could get some whisky. Gardner then went to defendant, who said he had some and would see about it. Later defendant went to the ball park, taking with him two bottles with a liquid in them the color of which Gardner says was "kinda white and brown;" that he gave defendant $3, which Shippman had given him with which to buy whisky. Gardner testified that he tasted it, but did not take enough to tell whether it was intoxicating, but that it tasted something like liquor. State's witness Shippman testified that he paid $3 for what he supposed was whisky, but that it was not whisky; that he took three or four drinks of it, and that it tasted like old herbs, and that it had no intoxicating effect on him whatever; that he took it home, gave it to his mother, who tasted it and declared it was not whisky; that she then threw the bottle out of the door and broke it. This is all the evidence concerning what the defendant sold. The charge under the law is that defendant had unlawfully sold and possessed intoxicating liquor. To sustain a conviction on this charge there must be some evidence offered by the state that the liquor which defendant sold or possessed was intoxicating. State v. Weagley (Mo. App.) 240 S. W. 822.
The judgment is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook
... ... (1) ... There is no proof sufficient as a matter of law that the ... liquid was hootch, etc., and overruling demurrers A and B was ... reversible error. State v. Pinto, 279 S.W. 144; ... State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v ... Elmer, 267 S.W. 934; State v. St. Clair, 247 ... S.W. 203; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 710; 33 C. J ... 491, sec. 1; 33 C. J., 577, sec. 194, note 81; State v ... Vandiver, 276 S.W. 1034; State v. Belyen, 295 ... S.W. 104. (2) Submitting the case on the conclusion of ... testimony of witnesses Miller, Sullinger and Stearns was ... ...
-
State v. Cook
...A and B was reversible error. State v. Pinto, 279 S.W. 144; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Elmer, 267 S.W. 934; State v. St. Clair, 247 S.W. 203; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 710; 33 C.J. 491, sec. 1; 33 C.J., 577, sec. 194, note 81; State v. Vandiver, 276 S.W. 1034; State v. Belyen, 2......
-
State v. Ernst
... ... (Okla.) 205 P. 774. The latter case involved a question ... as to whether the product found in the defendants' ... possession was beer. The proof showed that it was a liquid, ... which the officers believed to be beer. See also Norwood ... v. State, (Fla.) 86 So. 506; State v. St. Clair, ... (Mo.) 247 S.W. 203; Parham v. State, 89 So ... 775. The additional specification of error, goes to the ... refusal of the court to give an instruction requested by ... defendants to the effect that the word ... "manufacture" under our statute, means the ... completed product of liquor ... ...
-
People v. Morse
...must have further shown that this ‘something’ was intoxicating liquor, and this the testimony fails to show.' See, also, State v. St. Clair, 247 S. W. 203 (Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri). In Hill v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 290, 269 S. W. 90, it was held, quoting from the syllabus: ‘W......