Wukina v. State
| Decision Date | 15 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 23,754 |
| Citation | 128 N.E. 435,189 Ind. 535 |
| Parties | Wukina v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Vigo Circuit Court; John S. Jordan, Special Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Steve Wukina. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Blankenbaker & Owens and Gerdink & Gerdink, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and Remster A. Bingham, for the state.
Appellant was tried by the court and convicted of keeping intoxicating liquor with the intent to sell, in violation of § 4, Acts 1917 p. 15, § 8356a et seq. Burns' Supp. 1918. Questions arising under his motion for a new trial are two: (1) The court's refusal to discharge him at the close of the state's evidence in chief; (2) that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
His first claim presents no question, because after the court's refusal to discharge him, he introduced evidence. If he desired to contest the sufficiency of the state's case in chief, he should have stood on his exception to that ruling of the court. His failure to do that leaves for our consideration only the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. We need make only a brief summary of the evidence to determine this contention.
On June 21, 1919, the date charged in the affidavit, two police officers of the city of Terre Haute, authorized by search warrant, went to the home of appellant to search for intoxicating liquor. They found appellant's wife at home and told her their mission. She told them that there was no intoxicating liquor about the premises. Thereupon they searched the four rooms of the house and then searched the cellar, access to which they gained by lifting a trapdoor in the floor of the back porch. They found no liquor in the rooms of the house, and found none in the cellar; but in going through the cellarway they discovered a hole leading under the porch. One of the officers crawled into this hole and discovered an opening in the wall underneath the house. He there found a large quantity of liquor stored in gunny sacks under the house, the bulk of which was in quart bottles. He also found a number of half-pint bottles hidden in the holes in the concrete blocks of which the foundation of the house was made.
Eighteen and three-fourths gallons of whisky and two quarts of gin were introduced in evidence, and identified as the liquor taken by the officers from this house.
Appellant had a place of business one-half block from his residence where he sold soft drinks and some groceries,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. State
...by proceeding with the introduction of evidence after his motion was overruled, the defendant waived the motion.' See Wukina v. State (1920) 189 Ind. 535, 128 N.E. 435; Kennedy v. State (1935) 209 Ind. 287, 196 N.E. The fortieth reason assigned in the motion for a new trial is predicated up......
-
Kennedy v. State
... ... which instruction was tendered at the close of the ... state's evidence. The court overruled this motion, ... whereupon the trial was resumed and appellant proceeded to ... introduce his evidence in defense of the action ... In the ... case of Wukina v. State (1920) 189 Ind. 535, 128 ... N.E. 435, the defendant at the close of the state's case ... in chief filed a motion to be discharged on the ground of the ... insufficiency of the evidence, which motion the court ... overruled. After the court's refusal to discharge him, he ... ...
- Wukina v. State, 23754.