State v. Stock

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Lees
• Citation: State v. Stock, 169 Minn. 364, 211 N.W. 319 (Minn. 1926)
• Decision Date: 17 December 1926
• Docket Number: No. 25643.,25643.
• Parties: STATE v. STOCK.

211 N.W. 319

169 Minn. 364

STATE v. STOCK.

No. 25643.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 17, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Pennington County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.

William Stock was convicted of selling and furnishing intoxicating liquor to a 16 year old girl, and he appeals. Remanded, with directions.

C. L. Pegelow, of Bemidji, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and Theo. Quale, Co. Atty., of Thief River Falls, for the State.

LEES, C.

This case was here before, and is reported in 163 Minn. 271, 203 N. W. 964. At the second trial the evidence was substantially the same as at the first. The defendant was again convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. This appeal was taken from the judgment.

Appellant's first point is that the indictment charges more than one offense, and that the demurrer interposed on that ground should have been sustained. The indictment charged defendant with the crime of "selling and furnishing" intoxicating liquor to a girl of the age of 16 years. Chapter 16, G. S. 1923, makes it an offense to sell intoxicating liquor to any one, whether an adult or a minor. Chapter 290, G. L. 1911, makes it an offense to give intoxicating liquor to a minor. Section 3200, G. S. 1923, provides that the terms "sell" and "sale" shall include all barters, gifts and all means of furnishing liquor in violation or evasion of law. Sales are not mentioned in chapter 290, G. L. 1911. As authority in support of the contention that separate and distinct offenses are set forth in the indictment, appellant cites 33 C J. p. 735, where it is stated that an allegation that defendant sold or gave away intoxicating liquor to another renders the indictment objectionable on the ground of uncertainty. The statement is preceded by one to this effect: An indictment alleging that defendant did sell and give away intoxicating liquor will generally be sustained as against objections on the ground of indefiniteness or duplicity. The indictment in the present case charges defendant with having sold and furnished intoxicating liquors; hence it is not bad for duplicity according to the authority upon which appellant relies.

But the indictment must be read as a whole. It is sufficient if the act charged as the offense is set forth so clearly and distinctly that the defendant cannot fail to understand the nature of the offense of which he is accused, and with such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction. Section 10647, G. S. 1923. The defendant could hardly fail to understand that the basis of the prosecution was not a sale, but a gift of intoxicating liquor, to the girl named in the indictment, and the court could pronounce the proper judgment upon a conviction.

Section 1564, Rev. L. 1905, and section 3188, G. S. 1913, gave substantially the same definition of the terms "sell" and "sale" as is given in section 3200, G. S. 1923. We think the Legislature intended by these definitions to reach those who attempted to evade the liquor laws on the pretense that the liquor was not sold, but was given, to the person to whom it was furnished, and hold that the...