State v. Bell

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

State v. Bell

143 A. 792, 34 Del. 126, 4 W.W. Harr. 126, 1928 Del. LEXIS 28

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedApril 25, 1928

DocketNo. 11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A. 792 (State v. Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bell, 143 A. 792, 34 Del. 126, 4 W.W. Harr. 126, 1928 Del. LEXIS 28 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Richards, J.:

We are unable to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, because:

1. While the statute, in effect, provides that liquors containing a certain quantity of alcohol shall be deemed to be intoxicating and within the prohibition of the statute, that is not the only way that the intoxicating character of liquor may be shown (Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 977; 36 A. L. R. 726, 728; State v. Dennison, 85 W. Va. 261, 101 S. E. 458) and the fact that it made Beiter drunk would justify the jury in finding that the liquor, which the prosecuting witnesses claimed that they-bought from Bell, was intoxicating.

[129]*1292. There is evidence in the record that the liquor purchased by the prosecuting witnesses from Bell was whisky and the court will, therefore, take judicial notice of the fact that it was intoxicating, and that the jury might so find without any specific proof to that effect. Garboctowski v. State, 2 W. W. Harr. (32 Del.) 386, 123 A. 395; Frazier v. State, 27 Ga. App. 261, 107 S. E. 896; Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, § 977.

The evidence for the defense was then heard, and the court subsequently submitted the case to the jury.

Verdict not guilty.

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

Richards, J.:

We are unable to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, because:

1. While the statute, in effect, provides that liquors containing a certain quantity of alcohol shall be deemed to be intoxicating and within the prohibition of the statute, that is not the only way that the intoxicating character of liquor may be shown (Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 977; 36 A. L. R. 726, 728; State v. Dennison, 85 W. Va. 261, 101 S. E. 458) and the fact that it made Beiter drunk would justify the jury in finding that the liquor, which the prosecuting witnesses claimed that they-bought from Bell, was intoxicating.

[129]*1292. There is evidence in the record that the liquor purchased by the prosecuting witnesses from Bell was whisky and the court will, therefore, take judicial notice of the fact that it was intoxicating, and that the jury might so find without any specific proof to that effect. Garboctowski v. State, 2 W. W. Harr. (32 Del.) 386, 123 A. 395; Frazier v. State, 27 Ga. App. 261, 107 S. E. 896; Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, § 977.

The evidence for the defense was then heard, and the court subsequently submitted the case to the jury.

Verdict not guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A. 792, 34 Del. 126, 4 W.W. Harr. 126, 1928 Del. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bell-nygensess-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack