Case ID: la_165/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMPSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(115 So. 812)
    No. 28997.
    STATE v. THOMASON.
    Feb. 13, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied March 12, 1928.
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>l39 — 'Time Is not of essence of offense of- possessing intoxicating liquors.
    In prosecution for possessing intoxicating liquors, time is not of essence of offense.
    2. Indictment and information &wkey;>176 — State need only prove possession of intoxicating liquors. within prescriptive period, in absence of objection and of special defense requiring; proof of date alleged.
    In prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquors, state need only prove offense was committed within prescriptive period in absence of any objection by defendant and of any special defense requiring state to prove date alleged.
    
      3. Indictment and information &wkey;>176 — Evidence of possession of intoxicating liquor within three or four months from date alleged held to support conviction.
    In prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquors, where defendant made no special defense requiring state to prove possession on date alleged, requested no bill of particulars, and did not object to proof of different date than that named in indictment, evidence of possession within three or four months of date alleged in indictment was sufficient to support conviction.
    4. Indictment and information &wkey;>l59(3) — If defendant objects to proof of possession of intoxicating liquors on date different from that alleged by indictment, state has right to amend indictment.
    In prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquors, if defendant objects to proof of offense on date different from that alleged in indictment, which is within prescriptive period, state has right to amend indictment as to date of offense.
    Appeal from Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Richland; John R. McIntosh, Judge. ■
    A. C. Thomason was convicted of violating the prohibition statute, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Z. T. Heard, of Monroe, for appellant.
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., O. J. Ellis, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Rayville, and E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   THOMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from a sentence for violating the prohibition statute.

The case was submitted to this court without either brief or oral argument on the part of the defendant. .

The only error complained of, as disclosed by the record, is the refusal of the judge to charge himself that, before the defendant could be convicted, it was incumbent on the state to prove the exact date on which the offense was committed as set out in the indictment.

It appears that the defendant ran a filling station on a public highway, and a small grocery store and cold drink stand in connection therewith.

His groceries and cold drinks were kept in the front part of the store, and in the rear he kept beer and wine in an ice box. There was no evidence introduced by the state to show the exact date upon which the beer and wine were possessed, but the evidence, introduced without objection, did show that the possession of the prohibited beverages was continuous within a period of three or four months of the date alleged in the indictment, which was September 1, 1927. The indictment was returned by the grand jury and filed September 29, 1927.

Time is not of the essence of the offense charged against the defendant, and all that the state was required to prove was that the offense was committed within the prescriptive period, in the absence ef any objection on the part of the defendant, and in the absence of any special defense that would require the state to prove the date alleged.

No such special defense was made, no bill of particulars was requested, and no objection to proof of a different date than that named in the indictment was made. If any such objection had been made, the state would have had the right to amend the indictment as to the date of the offense.

“In the ordinary cases, where time is not .of the essence- of an offense, the evidence thereof need not correspond with the allegation, but may be admitted to show that the offense was committed at any time, whether before or after that alleged, provided it be within the period of prescription.” State v. Anderson, 136 La. 262, 66 So. 966.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.