State v. Applegate

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Applegate

260 P. 167, 45 Idaho 37, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 5

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 22, 1927

DocketNo. 5021.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 P. 167 (State v. Applegate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Applegate, 260 P. 167, 45 Idaho 37, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 5 (Idaho 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

The appellant, John Applegate, was convicted in the district court of Canyon county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to serve four months in jail and pay a fine of $300. The liquor alleged to have been sold consisted of a number of bottles of home-made beer. The record shows that on the trial the defendant admitted the possession of, but denied any sale of, liquor.

The only error assigned by appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.

We have carefully examined the record, and find no reversible error. The evidence as to the sale is conflicting, and the jury having found that a sale of intoxicating liquor was made by the defendant Applegate, following the rule laid down by this court in the case of State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 232 P. 1,State v. Shepard, 39 Idaho 666, 229 P. 87, and State v.Bouchard, 27 Idaho 500, 149 P. 464, that where the evidence is conflicting, the court will not disturb the verdict of the jury, we recommend that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Babcock and Adair, CC., concur.

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

The appellant, John Applegate, was convicted in the district court of Canyon county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to serve four months in jail and pay a fine of $300. The liquor alleged to have been sold consisted of a number of bottles of home-made beer. The record shows that on the trial the defendant admitted the possession of, but denied any sale of, liquor.

The only error assigned by appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.

We have carefully examined the record, and find no reversible error. The evidence as to the sale is conflicting, and the jury having found that a sale of intoxicating liquor was made by the defendant Applegate, following the rule laid down by this court in the case of State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 232 P. 1,State v. Shepard, 39 Idaho 666, 229 P. 87, and State v.Bouchard, 27 Idaho 500, 149 P. 464, that where the evidence is conflicting, the court will not disturb the verdict of the jury, we recommend that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Babcock and Adair, CC., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 P. 167, 45 Idaho 37, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-applegate-idaho-1927.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack