Church v. State

281 S.W. 903, 170 Ark. 974, 1926 Ark. LEXIS 257
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedApril 12, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 S.W. 903 (Church v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Church v. State, 281 S.W. 903, 170 Ark. 974, 1926 Ark. LEXIS 257 (Ark. 1926).

Opinion

Humphreys, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the circuit court of Clay County, Eastern District, under § 6165 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, making it unlawful for any one to transport alcoholic liquors from one place to another in this State, and was fined $100 as a punishment therefor, from which is this appeal.

The 'undisputed facts are that Elzra Blake, an employee of appellant, was instructed to go to his home and get a hottle of whiskey for him. Appellant told witness he would find the whiskey in the safe. Witness did as he was told, but, before getting to appellant with the whiskey, was intercepted by an officer, whereupon he broke the bottle. Witness had not tasted the liquid before destroying it, and said he could not swear whether it was whiskey or not.

Appellant’s first assignment of error is an alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. It is argued that there is no proof that the fluid in the bottle was alcoholic liquor. Appellant told the prosecuting witness that it was whiskey and where to find it. While taking it up town to appellant, witness was caught by an officer, and destroyed the bottle. This was proof sufficient that the liquid was whiskey, and courts take judicial knowledge of the fact that whiskey is intoxicating. Edgar v. State, 37 Ark. 218.

Appellant’s next assignment of error is that he could not be indicted, tried, and convicted as a principal because he was not present, aiding and abetting in the crime. The statute makes the crime of transporting alcoholic liquors a misdemeanor, and not a felony. In misdemeanors there are no accessories, so one who procures another to commit a misdemeanor is himself a principal in the crime. Sanders v. State, 18 Ark. 195; Stephens v. State, 164 Ark. 90.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilson v. Batesville
20 S.W.2d 114 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 S.W. 903, 170 Ark. 974, 1926 Ark. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/church-v-state-ark-1926.