Walker v. State
| Decision Date | 18 November 1912 |
| Citation | 127 P. 895,11 Okla.Crim. 339,1912 OK CR 475 |
| Parties | WALKER ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Any person residing or being within that portion of the state of Oklahoma which formerly comprised Oklahoma Territory has a right to purchase in another state and have shipped to him in this state intoxicating liquors, and have such liquors delivered to his residence or place of business for his personal use or use of his family, and such liquors are safe from interference by virtue of any state law until they reach their point of destination. This right is based upon and protected by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be interfered with by any constitutional provision or law of any state.
No person or combination of persons can lawfully ship into this state intoxicating liquors as interstate commerce and use the depot at which they are received as the point of their destination and as a warehouse for the general distribution of such liquors. Any such shipments are liable to seizure by the state officers, and such persons are subject to prosecution and punishment for a violation of the laws of the state.
For a statement of facts which sustain a conviction under the second syllabus of this case, see opinion of the court.
Where the state makes out a prima facie case against a defendant or defendants for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and there is any testimony in the possession of defendants which would constitute a defense to such case, the burden is upon such defendant or defendants to produce such testimony or to account for his or their failure to do so.
All persons who act together or are concerned in the commission of an offense are guilty as principals, and should be prosecuted and convicted as such.
Where two or more persons conspire together to commit an offense all words spoken or acts done by either of such persons in pursuance of the common design to commit such offense are admissible in evidence against and bind all of such conspirators, it matters not whether they were present or had knowledge of the words spoken or acts done; provided only that such words spoken or acts done were in pursuance of the common design of such conspiracy.
In order to warrant a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances proven and believed to be true by the jury must not only be consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but must also be inconsistent with his innocence. When the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt that this condition exists, it is their duty to convict in such cases.
Where it is shown that a defendant or defendants have obtained a United States license to sell intoxicating liquors, and they are found in possession of such liquors, this makes out a prima facie case against them, and, unless such prima facie case is rebutted, the jury is justified in convicting such defendant or defendants.
The amount of intoxicating liquors found in possession of a defendant who is charged with having possession of the same with intent to violate the prohibitory liquor law is not in of itself sufficient to support a conviction, but may be considered in connection with all of the other evidence in the case, and, when so considered in connection with such other evidence, it may assist to establish the intent of the person having possession of such liquors to violate the provisions of the prohibitory liquor law of the state.
Strict technical rules of construction should never be applied to the verdict of a jury. Their verdict should receive a common-sense construction, and, if it is possible to arrive at the intent and purpose of the jury, the verdict should be upheld. For a verdict which is held not to be bad for uncertainty, see opinion.
Appeal from Pottawatomie County Court; Ross F. Lockridge, Judge.
A. T Walker and others were convicted of having in their possession intoxicating liquors with the intention of selling, bartering, giving away, and otherwise furnishing the same in violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and appeal. Affirmed.
The appellants were charged with unlawfully having in their possession intoxicating liquors, to wit, whisky and beer, for the purpose and with the intention of selling, bartering giving away, and otherwise furnishing the same in violation of the prohibitory liquor laws of Oklahoma.
V. A. Vogal testified: That he was freight agent at the Missouri, Kansas & Texas depot at Shawnee, and had served in that capacity since December, 1909. That as such agent he had charge of handling the freight. That within 90 days prior to March 4, 1911, as such agent, the witness had received at such depot about 400 cases of liquor consigned to John Hall. That there were 4 gallons of whisky to each case as shown by the labels placed on them in compliance with the federal law. That the witness knows it was whisky because the bills of lading called for whisky. That during said time witness had also received at said depot 180 barrels of beer consigned to the said John Hall. That these barrels were larger than sugar barrels, and weighed each about 250 pounds. That there would generally be 10 items on a waybill. The items would be in 2-case lots, which would make 20 cases to one waybill. This whisky and beer was delivered to appellants or to their drivers, who were operating under the name of the O. K. Transfer Company. The appellants would present bills of lading, and then get the freight bill. The whisky was delivered to them on the freight bill. That some time in December appellant Walker came to the depot accompanied by a man who was represented to be John Hall. The man who was introduced as John Hall stated that he wanted to get busy with some liquor shipments, and wanted to know what the railroad company requirements were with reference to such shipments. Witness informed said party that he would have to make an affidavit that he had no federal license, and had no application pending for such license, and that the liquor so shipped was for his own personal and family use, and was not to be used in violating the laws of Oklahoma. That appellant Walker and the party represented as John Hall then left the depot, and said John Hall came back soon afterwards with the affidavit all made out. That the man said to be John Hall left the office, and witness did not know what became of him, but, before he left, he was informed that the liquor would not be delivered to appellants without an order from him each day, and said Hall stated he wanted the O. K. Transfer Company to handle the liquor for him. The appellants Al Walker, Bill Eslick, and Sam Leslie constituted the O. K. Transfer Company. That subsequent to said time, and before the 4th day of March, the railroad company had delivered to one of the counsel for appellants from 80 to 100 orders from John Hall for the delivery of liquor to appellants, which orders had been delivered to counsel for appellants to be filed in court, and witness does not know what has become of them. The witness does not know whether the lawyer for appellants to whom they were delivered filed them in court or not, or what had become of them. Witness has not seen them since. Over the objection and exception of counsel for appellants, witness was then permitted to state that each of these orders, in substance, contained directions to the railroad company to deliver his freight bills to appellants, and were signed by John Hall, and these orders were presented by appellants or by persons who were employed by them, and to whom the liquors were delivered. That the witness never saw John Hall but once. That witness has no knowledge of what became of the liquor after being delivered to appellants. That the wagons of appellants would hardly ever take less than 2 cases of liquor at a time, and sometimes would take 20 cases of whisky. At one time there was as much as 130 cases of whisky and 10 barrels of beer in the depot consigned to John Hall. Witness does not know where John Hall lives, and is not acquainted with any member of his family, never saw him before he was brought to the depot and introduced to witness by appellant Al Walker, and does not know his real name was John Hall, except that appellant Walker introduced him as John Hall. That witness has never seen said Hall since or any member of his family, or learned anything of his whereabouts. Witness never received any shipments of liquor to John Hall except that which was delivered to appellants. Each day witness required an affidavit to be filed that the liquor was for the personal and family use of John Hall, and would not be used in violating the laws of Oklahoma. The appellant Eslick brought most of these affidavits. He brought one in every morning or every evening and that would last for the day's shipment, and, when it was filed in the morning, he would get as many as 20 cases of whisky a day. That this liquor would be consigned to John Hall at Shawnee, and that no liquor was received consigned to John Hall at any other point.
T. A Amos testified: That he was checking clerk in the freight depot of the Rock Island Railway Company at Shawnee. That some time in September or October, 1910, appellant Eslick came into the office with a man and introduced him to witness as Mr. John Hall. Hall stated to witness that he was going to locate in Shawnee, and possibly would have some business with the railroad company, and requested witness to explain the conditions under which the railroad company handled shipments of liquor, what the company required for the delivery of liquor, and wanted to know if he would have to come up and sign for every shipment. Witness explained the regulations, and Hall said this would...
To continue reading
Request your trial