Stepp v. State

Citation132 Miss. 132,95 So. 838
Decision Date23 April 1923
Docket Number23109
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
PartiesSTEPP v. STATE

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Possession of home-made intoxicating wine through own fermentation for household purposes not prohibited.

Under chapter 189, section 12, subd. 4, Laws 1918, possession of home-made wine for domestic or household purposes is not prohibited, even though it is intoxicating through its own fermentation.

2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Whether intoxicating quality of home-made wine due to own fermentation or to added alcohol for jury.

And where one possesses intoxicating home-made wine apparently containing a percentage of alcohol, it is a question of fact for the jury whether such intoxicating quality is due to its fermentation or to added alcohol.

HON. C P. LONG, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Pontotoc county, HON. C. P. LONG Judge.

George Stepp was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded.

Mitchell & Mitchell, for appellant.

The question involved in this cause is the right of a person to have and possess home-made wine for household and domestic purposes. The testimony in the case is to the effect without contradiction that the liquors found in the possession of this appellant were home-made wines and that they were solely for such uses.

A brief history of the legislation on this particular subject is as follows: Section 1622, Code of 1892, gave the privilege of selling home-made wines without procuring a license therefor under certain restrictions. This was amended by chapter 107, Laws of 1896, permitting such sales to be made by the executor or administrator of a deceased person; and as amended, these statutes were incorporated into the Code of 1906, section 1791. These statutes provided that such wine must be made from grapes grown by the maker.

Laws of 1908, chapter 113, being section 2113 of Hemingway's Code, changed the law in this particular and granted the privilege of making home-made wines for domestic or household uses without limiting it to any particular fruit from which it should be made--that is, it does not limit it to wine made from grapes grown by the maker. Chapter 103, Laws of 1916, subdivision 5, being section 2155, Hemingway's Code, provides the same and grants the further privilege of having and possessing such liquors. This was re-enacted in chapter 189, Laws of 1918, subdivision 4 of section 12, and this is the law to-day as no change has been made since 1918.

We therefore respectfully submit that the court erred in refusing the peremptory instruction to find the defendant not guilty; or at least should have given the instruction submitting such question to the decision of the jury.

We submit that the cause should be reversed and the defendant discharged.

C. E. Dorroh, assistant attorney-general, for the state.

Appellant's contention would be well taken if the wine had been home-made wine containing the natural percentage of alcohol. But from what was found in connection with the wine, no doubt led the jury to believe that it was not home-made wine alone, but that it contained a greater percentage of alcohol than is found in the ordinary home-made wine.

The liquor which the officers captured and which was introduced in evidence, according to the officer's testimony, contained quite a large percentage of alcohol. They also testified that the bottle introduced in evidence was the wine captured by them. Sheriff Blaylock drank some of the wine and in his opinion it was intoxicating.

Appellant's theory is that the wine was not intoxicating, and that if it was, some one must have added alcohol to it. Appellee cannot conceive of an officer of the law doing such to bring about the prosecution of an innocent man. Witnesses for appellant testified after tasting the wine that it was stronger than what they usually drank, and it is the same wine that the officers captured in the home of appellant. It was easy enough, too, for appellant to pass around to his friends the wine which was not alcoholic. Appellee agrees with appellant in his contention as to the law, but the evidence shows that the wine was not the ordinary home-made wine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Bank of America, N.A. v. Presance Corp.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 2007
    ... ...          B. The Minority Approach ...         ¶ 14 But the ALI recognizes its approach conflicts with a majority of state court decisions. Of those states that require some knowledge, there is a further distinction. A minority of those jurisdictions deny equitable ... ...
  • In re Shavers
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 19 Octubre 2009
    ... ... (Case No. 03-55729, Claim No. 30) ... Court Proceedings ...          A. State Court ...         The divorce proceedings between Ann Shavers and John Shavers directly resulted in two judgments against John Shavers and ... ...
  • Forbert v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 17 Mayo 1937
    ...than four per centum by weight, but that such possession, if at all, must have been wilful and unlawful. Stepp v. State, 95 Miss. 838, 132 Miss. 132. A of the history of our state prohibition laws enacted in the past thirty years reveals the fact that the manufacture and possession of home-......
  • Prine v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 10 Noviembre 1930
    ...the finished product was thereby neither wine nor Jamaica ginger. See Holley v. State, 144 Miss. 726, 111 So. 139; and Stepp v. State, 132 Miss. 132, 95 So. 838, 839. may have meal, water, sugar, and own them separately and not violate the law, but when he blends these constituents in order......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT