Robins v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Robins v. State

118 So. 535, 151 Miss. 529, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 349

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 29, 1928

DocketNo. 27388.

StatusPublished

This text of 118 So. 535 (Robins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robins v. State, 118 So. 535, 151 Miss. 529, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 349 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, J.

The appellant, Eldridge Robins, was convicted in the circuit court of Lee county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and, from the sentence imposed, he prosecuted this appeal.

The affidavit upon which the conviction is based charged that:

“On or about the 18th day of January, 1928, . . . Eldridge Robins did wilfully and unlawfully sell intoxicating liquor,” etc.

*531 Over the objection of the appellant, the state introduced evidence of two separate and distinct sales of liquor, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court charged the jury that, if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant made either or both of the sales, they should find him guilty as charged in the affidavit. And the appellant assigns as error the admission of evidence of two sales.

Section 1762. of the Code of 1906' (section 2252, Hemingway’s 1927 Code) provides that:

“Oln the trial of all prosecutions for the violation of law by the sale or giving; away of liquors, bitters, or drinks, the state shall not be confined to the proof of a single violation, but may give evidence in any one or more» offences of the same character 'committed anterior to the day laid in the indictment or in the affidavit, and not barred by the statute of limitations. ’ ’

But in the cases of Bailey v. State, 144 Miss. 467, 110 So. 230, and Voss v. State, 144 Miss. 825, 110 So. 670, it was held that this statute does not authorize the admission of evidence of more than one sale in a prosecution based upon an indictment or affidavit which does not charge a sale on a day certain. In the Bailey case, supra, the affidavit charged a sale “on or about November 5, 3925,” while in the Voss case, supra, the indictment charged a sale “on the-day of-, 1925.” These cases are controlling here, and therefore, for the error in admitting the evidence of more than one sale of liquor, the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Cook, J.

The appellant, Eldridge Robins, was convicted in the circuit court of Lee county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and, from the sentence imposed, he prosecuted this appeal.

The affidavit upon which the conviction is based charged that:

“On or about the 18th day of January, 1928, . . . Eldridge Robins did wilfully and unlawfully sell intoxicating liquor,” etc.

*531 Over the objection of the appellant, the state introduced evidence of two separate and distinct sales of liquor, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court charged the jury that, if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant made either or both of the sales, they should find him guilty as charged in the affidavit. And the appellant assigns as error the admission of evidence of two sales.

Section 1762. of the Code of 1906' (section 2252, Hemingway’s 1927 Code) provides that:

“Oln the trial of all prosecutions for the violation of law by the sale or giving; away of liquors, bitters, or drinks, the state shall not be confined to the proof of a single violation, but may give evidence in any one or more» offences of the same character 'committed anterior to the day laid in the indictment or in the affidavit, and not barred by the statute of limitations. ’ ’

But in the cases of Bailey v. State, 144 Miss. 467, 110 So. 230, and Voss v. State, 144 Miss. 825, 110 So. 670, it was held that this statute does not authorize the admission of evidence of more than one sale in a prosecution based upon an indictment or affidavit which does not charge a sale on a day certain. In the Bailey case, supra, the affidavit charged a sale “on or about November 5, 3925,” while in the Voss case, supra, the indictment charged a sale “on the-day of-, 1925.” These cases are controlling here, and therefore, for the error in admitting the evidence of more than one sale of liquor, the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 535, 151 Miss. 529, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robins-v-state-miss-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack