Wright v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 November 1915
• Docket Number: 4318.
• Citation: 227 F. 855
• Parties: WRIGHT v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

227 F. 855

WRIGHT v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4318.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 13, 1915

Syllabus by the Court

There is a legal presumption that a defendant is innocent in a criminal case until he is proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the government to make this proof, and evidence that is as consistent with innocence as with guilt is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Unless there is substantial evidence of facts which exclude every other hypothesis but that of guilt, it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the accused; and when all the substantial evidence is as consistent with innocence as with guilt, it is the duty of the appellate court to reverse a judgment of conviction. The record considered, and held to contain no substantial evidence of the guilt of the defendant below.

Norman R. Haskell, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (W. J. Crump and G. J Crump, both of Muskogee, Okl., and E. G. McAdams, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

W. P McGinnis, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl. (D. H Linebaugh, U.S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

Before SANBORN and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for introducing intoxicating liquor into the Eastern district of Oklahoma, into the county of Muskogee in that district, which the indictment alleged had been a part of the Indian Territory and was a portion of the Indian country of the United States, from without the Indian country, from without the said district, and from without the said state of Oklahoma. The indictment seems therefore, to charge in a single count the introduction of intoxicating liquor from without the state of Oklahoma. The indictment seems, therefore, to charge in Indian Territory, in violation of section 8 of the Act of March 1, 1895 (28 Stat. 693), and the introduction of intoxicating liquor into the Indian Territory in violation of the Act of January 30, 1897, 29 Stat. 506 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4137), two distinct offenses. Ammerman v. United States, 216 F. 326, 132 C.C.A. 470; Allison v. United States, 216 F. 329, 132 C.C.A. 473. The defendant did not demur to the indictment, but pleaded not guilty; then at the opening of the trial moved for leave to withdraw his plea and to demur, a motion which was denied; and then objected to any evidence on the ground that the indictment was duplicitous, but his objection was overruled. At the close of all the evidence he made a motion for a peremptory instruction in his favor, which was denied, and the court instructed the jury that there was no evidence that the portion of Muskogee county where the liquor was found was or is Indian country, that they must not find the defendant guilty of a violation of the Act of January 30, 1897, but that they might consider and find whether or not he was guilty of a violation of the Act of March 1, 1895. These and many other rulings of the court at the trial of this case are assigned as error; but it is necessary to consider but one of them in order to dispose of it, and that is whether or not the request for a peremptory instruction should have been given.

There was evidence, much of which is challenged as incompetent, a challenge we do not stop to determine, and do not admit or deny the soundness of, that Petroleum is a railway station in Oklahoma, about three miles from Muskogee; that some unknown person presented to the cashier of the railroad company at Ft. Smith, Ark., a bill of lading of M.,K. & T. car No 72837, which appeared from the bill of lading to be loaded with cotton seed hulls and to be shipped by the Ft. Smith Cotton Oil Company to W. D. Todd, at Petroleum; that the cashier accepted prepayment of the freight and billed the car to Petroleum, where it arrived on July 12, 1912, at about 8 p.m.; that an hour or two after dark on that day men with teams arrived at Petroleum, took intoxicating liquor from the car, and hauled it toward Muskogee; and that on the way the sheriff of Muskogee county captured the liquor. There was no direct evidence that Wright, the defendant below, owned the liquor, that he had ordered or requested its introduction into Oklahoma, or that he had directed, superintended, or was in any way interested in unloading or hauling it into Muskogee. He testified that, at the time the car was unloaded and the liquor was drawn towards Muskogee, he was at his residence in that city with W. L. stokes, another witness, who testified that he was at Wright's house discussing a matter of business with him at that time. Wright further testified that he had nothing to do with introducing the liquor, that he was not interested in it, that he did not go out to the car that night, and did not pass Ed. Mahoney, a deputy sheriff, who testified that as he was going out to the car that night he met Wright on...