Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 77 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
D. L King, for appellant.
Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.
1. Witness Morris was not an accomplice. The instruction on the question of accomplice is correct. 64 Ark. 253.
2. Our prohibition law is constitutional. 156 U.S. 1; 226 Id. 192; 152 Id. 133; 211 Id. 31; 232 Id. 138; 187 Id. 607; 225 Id 623; 226 Id. 192; 69 So. 652; 210 F. 378; 33 Me. 558; 54 Am. Dec. 639; 205 U.S. 93; 68 So. 993; 179 Ala. 51; 177 Id. 149; 8 App. Ct. Rep. 386; 62 So. 365; 67 Id. 651; 82 Kan. 756; 109 P. 183; 140 Id. 49; 109 Ga. 373; 47 L. It. A. 36; 77 Am. St. 384; 83 S.W. 254.
Appellant was twice indicted and convicted for a violation of Act No. 30 of the Acts of 1915, page 98. This is the act which prohibits the issuance of liquor license and makes the sale of intoxicating liquors a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the State penitentiary for a period of one year. The cases have been briefed and argued together, and as the issues are identical, we dispose of them as a single case.
Appellant questions, first, the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon this question it may be said that two witnesses, one named Arnold and another named Morris, testified in each case to a sale, and their evidence, if true, would leave no doubt of appellant's guilt.
Appellant says, secondly, there is no proof of his guilt except the evidence of Morris, and that the proof shows Morris was an accomplice and that, therefore, the evidence is insufficient for the want of legal corroboration. This could not be true unless the jury totally disregarded the evidence of Arnold, and it was within the province of the jury to pass upon his credibility.
The contention that Morris was an accomplice is based upon his own evidence that he was interested in trying to break up blind tigers and had helped Arnold to buy the liquor for the purpose of prosecuting the person who made the sale, and upon the evidence of Arnold, who testified that when he and Morris met appellant in the room, where the liquor was delivered, Morris said, "Arnold is all right; he won't give you away." Upon this question the court gave an instruction which directed the jury to find whether Morris was an accomplice, and instructed them, in accordance with the provisions of section 2384 of Kirby's Digest, that a conviction could not be had on this evidence unless they found Morris was corroborated as required by said section.
In the oral argument appellant contends that the purchaser is an accomplice of the seller and that a conviction can not, therefore, be had on his evidence without corroboration. We have held, however, that when the statute is directed against the sale, and not against the purchase, of whiskey, one who assists the purchaser in buying intoxicating liquor, and confines his participation in the transaction exclusively to the buying, and not to the selling, is not guilty of any offense. The penalties of this act are denounced against one who sells, and not against, one who buys. See Dale v. State, 90 Ark. 579, 120 S.W. 389; Fenix v. State, 90 Ark. 589, 120 S.W. 388, and cases there cited. See, also, 12 Cyc. 447, and cases cited.
It is finally insisted that sections 2 and 3 of the act are unconstitutional, because any corporation which violates the act is made guilty of a felony, and because the act names a fixed punishment and does not leave to the court or jury any discretion in fixing the punishment, and because the court is denied the right to suspend sentence upon a conviction being had before the jury.
We need not consider here whether a corporation can violate this act. The Legislature evidently intended to prevent any one and everybody from selling liquors, and even though the provision as to corporations was void, that fact would not invalidate the remainder of the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sonner v. Shearin
...State v. Edge,96 Ariz. 302, 304, 394 P.2d 418 (1964); Davis v. State, 169 Ark. 932, 934-936, 277 S.W. 5 (1925); Wilson v. State, 124 Ark. 477, 479-480, 187 S.W. 440 (1916); People v. Alotis, 60 Cal.2d 698, 36 Cal.Rptr. 443, 448, 450, 388 P.2d 675 (1964); Oster v. Municipal Court, 45 Cal.2d ......
-
Henderson v. State
...v. State, 217 Ark. 153, 228 S.W.2d 1003. In Rich v. State, 176 Ark. 1205, 2 S.W.2d 40, we held, upon the authority of Wilson v. State, 124 Ark. 477, 187 S.W. 440, that one who assists a purchaser in buying intoxicating liquors and confines his participation in the transaction exclusively to......
-
Springer v. State
... ... dollar therefor. We have held that the purchaser is not an ... accomplice of the seller, and that the statute requiring ... corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice to sustain a ... conviction did not apply in such cases. Wilson v ... State, 124 Ark. 477, 187 S.W. 440. Portions of the ... testimony of this witness appear to indicate a lack of ... intelligence, or of candor; but it was the province of the ... jury to pass upon the veracity of the witnesses, and, as the ... jury evidently accepted as true the statement ... ...
-
Dickerson v. United States
...157, 178 P. 30, 31; State v. Tremont, 160 Minn. 314, 200 N. W. 93; Lewis v. Commonwealth, 201 Ky. 343, 256 S. W. 710; Wilson v. State, 124 Ark. 477, 187 S. W. 440. The following persons have been held not to be accomplices: A person purchasing beer on Sunday, State v. Baden, 37 Minn. 212, 3......