State v. Burk
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Eon. F. C. Johnston, Judge. (1) The verdict in this case is not based upon evidence. State v. Martin, 28. Mo. App. '530 ; Cape Girardeau v. Fisher, 61 Mo. App. 5091. (2) The state failed to prove that drinks sold by defendant was an intoxicating liquor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Eon. F. C. Johnston, Judge. (1) The verdict in this case is not based upon evidence. State v. Martin, 28. Mo. App. '530 ; Cape Girardeau v. Fisher, 61 Mo. App. 5091. (2) The state failed to prove that drinks sold by defendant was an intoxicating liquor. Hilz v. Eailroad, 101 Mo. 36- (3) The court having admitted improper, irrelevant and hearsay evidence calculated to greatly prejudice the minds of the jury against the defendant, committed further error by assuming that the beer in question was intoxicating in. instruction number one. 1 Words and Phrases,…
1Dissent
DISSENTING' OPINION.
GRAY, J.
I do not think the judgment in this case should be affirmed. It will be seen from the instruction given in behalf of the state, that the court told the jury if the defendant sold “beer” to find him guilty. If the state’s witness had only testified that he bought beer of the defendant, then the instruction would have been proper, as under the statutes of this state and the decisions of the court, the word “beer” in its ordinary sense, means an intoxicating liquor, to-wit: a fermented liquor. [R. S. 1899; sec. 3032; State v. Houts, 36 Mo. App. 265; State v. Heinze,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- De Graff v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
- State v. CarmodyOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Rau v. . People of the State of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Gourley v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.