Miller v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District. Hugh F. Thomason, Judge. There was no gift in the meaning of the statute. 3 Wait’s Ac. & Def., p. 487. It was error to instruct the jury that the mere passing the bottle constituted an offense. The ownership of the liquor is immaterial. A criminal intent is not essential to the offense. One must know to whom he sells or gives.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District. Hugh F. Thomason, Judge. There was no gift in the meaning of the statute. 3 Wait’s Ac. & Def., p. 487. It was error to instruct the jury that the mere passing the bottle constituted an offense. The ownership of the liquor is immaterial. A criminal intent is not essential to the offense. One must know to whom he sells or gives. All persons who aid, abet or procure the sale or gift to minors are guilty, as principals. 62. Ala., 168; 36 Ark., 61; 13 id., 696; 98 Mass., 6; 61 Ala., 75 ; 37 Ark., 219 ; ib., 399 ; 45 id., 361.
1Opinion of the CourtMansfield, J.
This appeal is from a conviction under the act of April 6, 1889, amending section 1878 of the digest. The amended statute is as follows: “Any person who shall sell or give away, either for himself or another, or be interested in the sale or giving away of any ardent, vinous, malt, or fermented liquors, or any compound or preparation thereof called tonics, bitters, or medicated whisky, to any minor,, without the written consent or order of the parent or guardian, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than fifty nor more than one…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Burrow v. Hot SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Dickson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
- Hager v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920