Strozier v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; W. H. Pemberton, Special Judge; 1. The indictment charges that a quart was sold, hence the quantity was material. It was error to instruct the jury that it was not material as to the quantity sold. The evidence should not vary from the allegations in the indictment. 66 Ark. 120; 60 Id. 141. 1. Unless the statute makes the quantity an essential element of the crime, an allegation as to the quantity sold need not be proved.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; W. H. Pemberton, Special Judge; 1. The indictment charges that a quart was sold, hence the quantity was material. It was error to instruct the jury that it was not material as to the quantity sold. The evidence should not vary from the allegations in the indictment. 66 Ark. 120; 60 Id. 141. 1. Unless the statute makes the quantity an essential element of the crime, an allegation as to the quantity sold need not be proved. Proof of sale of any quantity is sufficient. McClain on Cr. Law, § 1273; 13 Enc. of Ev. 732; 54 Minn. 105; 38 N. H. 81; 16 Mo. 551; 28 Id.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant was convicted under an indictment which alleged that he had sold one quart of alcoholic liquors to one Robert Edwards, while the proof showed the sale of two half-pint bottles of whiskey. Upon the trial the court instructed the jury, over appellant’s objection, that it was immaterial whether the amount sold was a pint, quart, or a half-pint, provided the jury found appellant had sold some quantity. This appeal questions only the correctness of this instruction. Appellant says it is erroneous because there is a variance between the allegation of the indictment and the proof. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. TisdaleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- State v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- State v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859