Case Name: STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. ROBERT STANLEY
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1917-06-28
Citations: 38 N.D. 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. ROBERT STANLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 311–321

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. ROBERT STANLEY.
(164 N. W. 702.)
■Crime of bootlegging — prosecution for — information — sufficiency of — — charging clause.
1. In a prosecution for the so-called crime of bootlegging, under the provisions of § 10,144 of the Compiled Laws of 1913, an information is sufficiently definite which charges that the crime was committed in a bam on a certain block in a certain city and county, and the name of the owner of such barn is not necessary.
Bootlegging — crime of — how committed — premises — owner of — permission of — licensee merely.
2. Under § 10144, Compiled Laws of 1913, which provides that “the crime of bootlegging ... is committed by any person who sells . . . intoxicating liquor ... in the buildings of any person, . . . without the permission of the owner [or] of the person entitled to the possession of such . . . buildings,” no such ownership or right of possession exists in one who merely has an agreement with a livery-stable keeper that he may keep a horse in a barn which may be rented out, and, in lieu of charging for the stabling and hay, the livery-stable owner may keep one half of the proceeds of such renting, the owner of such horse being held to be a licensee merely.
■Evidence — sufficiency of — jury — verdict.
3. Evidence examined and held■ sufficient to justify a finding of the jury that there was an illegal sale.
■Court — instructions to jury — waiver of written — consent to oral — defendant asked if he so consented — in presence of jury — no error.
4. Where no error has been committed in the instructions to the jury, no complaint can be made upon the ground that the defendant was suddenly asked at the close of the evidence, and in the presence of the jury, if he would waive written, and consent to the giving of oral, instructions.
Bootlegging — prior sales — in same place — by same defendant — admissible — may show purpose — intent — and plan of defendant — treating.
5. Evidence of prior sales in the same place and of prior shipments may be admitted in a prosecution for the crime of bootlegging, in order to show purpose, intent, and plan, and when the defense is that the transaction was a joint purchase and treat, and not a sale.
Opinion filed June 28, 1917.
Rehearing denied October 13, 1917.
Prosecution for the crime of bootlegging.
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Honorable G. W. Buttz, Judge.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
M. H. Brennan, for appellant.
The commitment was void because of no indorsement on the complaint by the magistrate, and defendant should have been released on habeas corpus. State v. Rozum, 8 N. D. 548, 80 N. W. 480; Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 10,616, 11,375; Ex parte Branigan, 19 Cal. 138.
In a legal sense a person is drunk when he is visibly excited, or his judgment is impaired by liquor. He is not, under such circumstances, capable of making a contract, and cannot be capable of understanding the matter of waiving an examination in a criminal action. State v. Pierce, 65 Iowa, 85, 21 N. W. 195; 1 Whart. & 8. lied. Jur. p. 13.
Where the charge of selling liquor is made in a certain city, it is insufficient if it does not state a definite place in that city at which the sale is claimed to have been made. Arrington v. Com. 87 Va. 96, 10 L.R.A. 242, 12 S. E. 224.
Ownership of the building or property where the sale took place must be alleged and proved. 6 Cyc. 204; State v. Trapp, 17 S. C. 470, 43 Am. Rep. 614.
In this case the state should have pleaded and proved a partnership. 6 Cyc. 215; State v. Rivers, 68 Iowa, 611, 27 N. W. 781; Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 So. 54; Davis v. State, 54 Ala. 88.
The owner of a building cannot be convicted of this crime merely because some person entered the building and began to sell liquor there. Knowledge and consent must be clearly shown. State ex rel. Kelly v. Nelson, 13 N. D. 125, 99 N. W. 1077; Merryfield v. Swift, 103 Iowa, 167, 72 N. W. 444; State v. Lawler, 85 Iowa, 564, 52 N. W. 490; Morgan v. Koestner, 83 Iowa, 134, 49 N. W. 80; State v. Severson, 88 Iowa, 714, 54 N. W. 347; State v. Price, 92 Iowa, 181, 60 N. W. 514.
The defendant, charged with selling to three persons jointly, cannot be convicted of an illegal sale to but one of the three named. State v. Williams, 20 S. D. 492, 107 N. W. 830; State v. Julius, 29 S. D. 638, 137 N. W. 590; State v. Gordon, 32 N. D. 31, 155 N. W. 59.
On the trial of a person accused of crime, proof of a distinct, independent offense is inadmissible. People v. Molineux, 168 N. T. 264, 62 L.E.A. 193, 61 N. E. 286; State v. Miller, 20 N. D. 509, 128 N. W. 1034; State v. Fallon, 2 N. D. 510, 52 N. W. 318; Johnson v. State, — Tex. Grim. Eep. —, 62 S. W. 755; Freedman v. State, 37 Tex. Grim. Eep. 115, 38 S. W. 993; Walker v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. Eep. 546, 72 S. W. 861; State v. Dooley, 89 Iowa, 584, 57 N. W. 414; State v. Murphy, 17 N. D. 48, 17 L.E.A.(N.S.) 609, 115 N. W. 84, 16 Ann. Gas. 1133.
Intent will be inferred from the act. Consequently the extraneous incidents were all inadmissible on the pretext of showing intent, and such evidence will be presumed to be harmful. Eock v. State, ■— Ind. —, 110 N. E. 212; Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 275, 26 Am. Eep. 21, 2 Am. Grim. Eep. 165; Marmont v. State, 48 Ind. 31, 1 Am. Grim. Eep. 447; Porter v. State, 173 Ind. 703, 91 N. E. 340.
Where evidence of other offenses is offered, a complete case must be made out, that is, a crime must be shown. Baxter v. State, 91 Ohio St. 167, 110 N. E. 456; Baldwin v. State, 11 Okla. Grim. Eep. 228,. 144 Pac. 634; People v. Plummer, 189 Mich. 415, 155 N. W. 533; Ohipman v. People, 24 Colo. 520, 52 Pac. 677; State v. Eulwider, 28 S. D. 622, 134 N. W. 807; State v. Benson, 154 Iowa, 313, 134 N. W. 851; State v. Hakon, 21 N. D. 133, 129 N. W. 234; Elliott, Ev. § 156.
It is not sufficient to offer evidence of other crimes, even though remote intent may appear’. State v. Foxton, 166 Iowa, 181, 52 L.E.A. (N.S.) 919, 147 N. W. 347, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 727.
The court erred in asking the parties immediately after argument if they would waive written instructions and consent to oral, especially when in open court and in the presence of the jury. Forzen v. Hurd, 30 N. D. 42, 126 N. W. 225.
Defendant was entitled to an instruction requiring the state to apprise him of what transaction it relied on and requiring it to elect on which it proposed to stand. State v. Poull, 14 N. D. 557, 105 N. W. '717; State v. Boughner, 7 S. D. 103, 63 N. W. 542.
William Longer, Attorney General, and Bollo F. Hunt, State’s Attorney, for respondent.
In appeal cases the court must give judgment without regard to technical errors or defects or exceptions, which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Comp. Laws 1913, § 11,013.
All the law requires in an information is that it shall contain a .statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is-intended. Comp. Laws 1913, chap. 8, Code Grim. Proc.; State v. Longstreth, 19 N. D. 268, 121 N. W. 1114, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1317; State v. Lewis, 13 S. D. 166, 82 N. W. 406; State v. Hellekson, 13 S. D. 242, 83 N. W. 254; State v. Kent, 4 N. D. ■577, 27 L.B.A. 686, 62 N. W. 631; State v. Burchard, 4 S. D. 548, 57 N. W. 491; Deadwood v. Allen, 8 S. D. 618, 67 N. W. 835.
It is not necessary to describe with particular accuracy the exact location where the offense of selling intoxicating liquors is committed. State v. Bozum, 8 N. D. 548, 80 N. W. 477; State v. Donaldson, 12 S. D. 259, 81 N. W. 299; State v. Cambrón, 20 S. D. 282, 105 N. W. 341; Arrington v. Com. 87 Va. 96, 10 L.B.A. 242, 12 S. E. 224.
Bootlegging in a building consists in selling or bartering intoxicating liquors without the. permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession of such building. The information clearly charges such offense. Comp. Laws 1913, § 10,144.
The question of making the information more definite and specific is a matter of discretion with the trial court. State v. Hakon, 21 N. D. 135, 129 N. W. 234.
The testimony discloses a complete sale of intoxicating liquor by defendant to the three persons named and at the time and place stated in the information, and defendant’s efforts to evade consist of the most meager technicalities. State v. Dellaire, 4 N. D. 312, 60 N. W. 988; Nelson v. United States, 30 Fed. 112; MeCuen v. State, 19 Ark. 630; Hill y. Dalton, 72 Ga. 314; Parmenter v. United States, 6 Ind. Terr. £32, 98 So. 340; State v. Brooks, 33 Kan. 708, 7 Pac. 591, 6 Am. Crim. Kep. 299; State v. Whisner, 35 Kan. 271, 10 Pac. 852; Junction City v. Webb, 44 Kan. 71, 23 Pac. 1073; State v. Moseli, 49 Kan. 142, 30 Pae. 189; Lincoln Center v. Linker, 5 Kan. App. 242, 47 Pac. 174.
It is proper to offer evidence of independent offenses committed by ■defendant where they tend to disclose motive, intent, or system on the part of defendant. Jones, Ev. 2d ed. §§ 143, and 144; People v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523, 124 N. W. 546, 18 Ann. Cas. 844; Pitner v. ■State, 37 Tex. Crim. Kep. 268, 39 S. W. 662; Walker v. State, 49 Tex. Crim. Kep. 345, 94 S. W. 230; Archer v. State, 45 Md. 33, 2 Am. Crim. Kep. 404; Com. v. Sinclair, 138 Mass. 493, 5 Am. Crim. Kep. 330; State v. Miller, 20 N. D. 509, 128 N. W. 1034; State v. Eallon, 2 N. D. 510, 52 N. W. 318; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Kep. 69, 2 Am. Crim. Kep. 506; State v. Murphy, 17 N. D. 48, 17 L.K.A.(N.S-) 609, 115 N. W. 84, 16 Ann. Cas. 1133; People v. Molineux, 168 N. T. 264, 62 L.R.A. 193, 61 N. E. 286; State v. Hakon, 21 N. D. 133, 129 N. W. 234.; State v. O’Brien, 35 Mont. 482, 90 Pac. 514, 10 Ann. Cas. 1006; State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210, 108 N. W. 6.
The statute does not require the court to give written instructions in all eases. Where the parties and counsel are all in court, and consent is asked by the court and given by counsel, oral instructions may be given. It is not a question of ethics or propriety. Eorzen v. Hurd, 20 N. D. 42, 126 N. W. 224; State v. Poull, 14 N. D. 557, 105 N. W. 717; State v. Boughner, 7 S. D. 103, 63 N. W. 542.

Opinion:
Robinson, J.
In this case the defendant has been convicted of the crime of bootlegging, and he appeals to this court. The conviction is under Comp. Laws, § 10,144. The crime is committed by any person •selling intoxicating liquors one or more times to one or more persons upon public roads, streets, or alleys, or upon lands and buildings of .any person, without the permission of the owner of such land or buildings. The charge against the defendant is that on July 3, 1915, in Devils Lake, Ramsey county, he did sell to each of three certain persons intoxicating liquors as a beverage, in a frame barn of one Maher •& Lock, and that he did it without the permission of the owners of said barn. Clearly tbe information states an offense within the statute, and the evidence shows beyond all doubt that the defendant is guilty. It also shows that he got drunk, and contracted to sell a case of beer, and received the money without delivering the goods. Six dollars and fifty cents was paid to Stanley for a case of beer. He pocketed the money, as he himself admits, and failed to deliver the beer. He quarreled with the purchasers, and became aggressive, and struck one of them when, requested to return the money or to deliver the beer.
Hive express orders made to a wholesale liquor house in St. Paul were put in evidence in connection with testimony of the defendant himself and other witnesses. These make a conclusive showing that, during the month of June, defendant sent five orders to St. Paul for whisky, and every order was for 24 pints.
Defendant is a married man. He called as witnesses his wife and his son, a boy of seventeen years. He was a witness for himself and against himself. His own testimony strongly corroborates the positive testimony against him, though he positively denied selling any liquor, as charged against him.
The long record shows needless objections to nearly every question. It contains an assignment of numerous exceptions and errors, but the objections and exceptions merit no consideration when the information is clearly sufficient and when the evidence shows, as it does, the guilt of the defendant beyond a doubt. This statute is drastic, but its purpose is good. It was to put a stop to such a nefarious proceeding-as. disclosed by the evidence in this case. Judgment affirmed.