State v. Stock

• Decision Date: 15 May 1925
• Docket Number: 24,748
• Citation: 203 N.W. 964,163 Minn. 271
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAM STOCK
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

203 N.W. 964

163 Minn. 271

STATE v. WILLIAM STOCK

No. 24,748

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 15, 1925

Defendant and another were indicted by the grand jury of Pennington county charged with the crime of selling and furnishing intoxicating liquor to a minor, tried separately in the district court for that county before Grindeland, J and a jury which found defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. Defendant appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Proof required to convict defendant of sale of intoxicating liquor to minor.

In a prosecution for a violation of the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under 21 years of age, it is necessary for the state to establish by legal evidence each of the elemental facts constituting the crime charged. Under the evidence in this case, an instruction that the defendant was guilty, if the liquor furnished to the person named in the indictment was an intoxicant, should not have been given.

1. See Intoxicating Liquor, 33 C.J. p. 744, § 480; p. 791, § 547.

C. L. Pegelow, for appellant.

Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, James E. Markham, Deputy Attorney General, and Theodore Quale, County Attorney, for respondent.

OPINION

LEES, C.

James Thompson and William Stock were indicted jointly charged with the crime of "selling and furnishing intoxicating liquor to a minor." They were tried separately and Stock was found guilty, and he has appealed from the judgment of conviction.

The evidence warranted the jury in finding that at the time specified in the indictment the defendants were in the company of two girls, one 22 and the other 16 1/2 years of age; that in the evening the four drove about the streets of Thief River Falls in Thompson's car, and that he had that day purchased a bottle of "Crabina" and had placed a portion of it in a small bottle which he had in his car. Thompson testified that "Crabina" is a nonalcoholic apple cider, but the evidence as to the consequences of drinking it showed clearly that, if the bottle contained cider, the cider had become very hard. In the course of the drive Stock went to the hotel where Thompson stayed, got some water glasses, and then went into a pool hall and purchased several small bottles of "Extra Dry," a beverage described by the witnesses as a kind of grape juice and nonintoxicant. During the evening the contents of the bottle Thompson provided and the contents of the bottles Stock purchased were mixed in the glasses and drunk by the several members of the party, and all but Thompson became more or less intoxicated.

The court instructed the jury that "it is the law in this state that any person who shall sell liquor to anyone under twenty-one years of age is guilty of a felony." The statutory definition of the word "sell" was then read to the jury, and the court proceeded to say:

"If the crime here charged was committed, these defendants are equally guilty, as the law is that if two or more persons are engaged in the commission of a crime the acts of each in the commission of such crime are binding upon all and all are equally responsible for the acts of each. * * * What is the real question at issue in this case? The question is simply this: Were the drinks that William Stock and James Thompson gave Ruth Quammen (the minor) * * * intoxicating? If, under the evidence and instructions as to the law, you find they were, then this defendant William Stock is guilty."

Proper exceptions were taken and a reversal is sought because of alleged error in the giving of these instructions.

It was necessary for the state to establish by legal evidence the elemental facts constituting the crime charged. The plea of not guilty and the presumption of defendant's innocence made the credibility of the...