The State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 26201 |
| Citation | 279 S.W. 134,311 Mo. 531 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. CREON MOORE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court; Hon. Charles T. Hays Judge.
Affirmed.
Robert W. Otto, Attorney-General, and James A. Potter Special Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) The indictment was in proper form. It is not necessary to specify the quantity of liquor sold in an indictment charging the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. State v. Vance, 267 S.W. 1118; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 710. (2) Defendant's motion to quash the indictment cannot now be considered because the same was not preserved in the bill of exceptions. State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 710.
Defendant was indicted and tried in the Circuit Court of Marion County on the charge of selling, September 4, 1923, "moonshine whiskey, commonly called hootch, containing one-half of one per cent of alcohol and more by volume."
The State introduced evidence to show that September 4, 1923, the defendant sold one pint of whiskey to one Charlie Ross in the presence of one Harold Morgan, for which Charlie Ross paid him one dollar. Within ten minutes thereafter this witness delivered the bottle of whiskey to a deputy sheriff, W. R. Marks, who placed it in a bank vault in Hannibal and later delivered it to Douglas S. Baker. Baker testified that he was Federal prohibition agent, that he had been connected with the Government thirty-two years, and his duty was testing liquor for its alcoholic content. That he tested the liquor delivered to him by Marks, and found that it contained 42.1 per cent of alcohol by volume; that it was moonshine whiskey; that he made the test on the tenth day of September, 1923; that in his official position he had occasion to test both moonshine whiskey and bonded whiskey.
The defendant denied having sold the liquor, or any liquor, to Charlie Ross or Harold Morgan. On the evidence the defendant was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at a term of two years in the penitentiary. From the judgment thereupon rendered he appealed.
The record shows that the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, but the motion is not preserved in the bill of exceptions for our consideration. At the beginning of the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence, on the ground that the indictment did not charge all the elements of any offense, and did not advise the defendant of the nature of the cause and accusation against him. This objection was overruled. At the close of the evidence the defendant offered an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, directing the jury that under the law and the pleadings and the evidence they should find the defendant not guilty. This instruction was refused. The motion for new trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Settle
...charges the offense in the language of the statute, and is therefore sufficient. State v. Toombs, 25 S.W.2d 101; State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 134, 311 Mo. 531; State v. Anderson, 250 S.W. 68, 298 Mo. State v. Hilton, 248 Mo. 522; State v. Nash, 222 S.W. 396, 283 Mo. 32. (5) It is not necessary ......
-
State v. Toombs
... ... against him, and is fatally defective. United States v ... Hess, 124 U.S. 483; United States v ... Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; State v. Wolfner, 318 ... Mo. 1068, 2 S.W. (2 Ed.) 592; State v. Stowe, 132 ... Mo. 199; United States v. Moore, 60 F. 738; ... Collins v. United States, 253 F. 609; Foster v ... United States, 253 F. 481; United States v ... Robinson, 266 F. 240; Hill v. United States, ... 275 F. 188; People v. Butler, 169 P. 919; People ... v. McKenna, 81 Cal. 158, 22 P. 488; People v ... Mahony, 78 ... ...
-
State v. Spidle
...v. McKeever, 101 S.W.2d 22; State v. Baird, 195 S.W. 1013; State v. Futrell, 46 S.W.2d 591; State v. Lovelace, 39 S.W.2d 533; State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 133. (2) court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to quash the information. Secs. 3563, 4070, R. S. 1929; State v. Adams, 108 Mo. ......
-
State v. Parsons
...statute which defines the offense sought to be charged and is sufficient in form and substance. Laws 1923, p. 242, § 21; State v. Moore, 311 Mo. 531, 279 S. W. 134; State v. Griffith, 311 Mo. 630, 279 S. W. The jury, by their verdict, found appellant "guilty of selling corn whisky as charge......