Court Opinion

ID: 9825143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:10:34.470437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:27.509554
License: Public Domain

Rehearing denied December 14, 1926.
On Petition for Rehearing.
(251 Pac. 307.)
Defendant has petitioned the court for rehearing alleging error on the part of this court in ruling that the “objection made to the verdict was not raised to the court below and is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions.” If the objection to the verdict is to the effect that it is insufficient to support a judgment, it is not necessary to save an exception and incorporate the matter in the bill of exceptions: Or. L., § 172; Chrudinsky v. Evans, 85 Or. 548, 551 (167 Pac. 562).
*95The verdict is as follows:
“We, the trial jury, in the above entitled criminal action find the defendant guilty of possessing intoxicating liquor.”
 The writer is of the opinion that the verdict is sufficient. The defendant complains because the word “unlawful” is not in the verdict. Verdicts are to be construed liberally and if the intent of the jury is clear will be sustained regardless of the form.
“The Language of the Verdict,—being that of ‘lay people,’ need not follow the strict rules of pleading, or be otherwise technical. Whatever conveys the idea to the common understanding will suffice. And all fair intendments will be made to support it. * *
“If the jury mean to convict the defendant of everything alleged, any expression of the idea, however brief, will be adequate. The full and orderly phrase is ‘guilty in manner and form as charged against him in the indictment’; and it is practically to be chosen. But the single word ‘guilty,’ set in a proper connection, will suffice, as conveying the whole idea. In offences of different grades, it is sometimes said that this sort of expression means guilty of the highest grades; but as the highest includes all under it, guilty of the highest means guilty of all.” Bishop’s New Criminal Procedure, 869-871, § 1005a.
22 Ency. of Pleading and Practice, 955, 956, 960; State v. Pugh, 75 Kan. 792 (90 Pac. 242); State v. Wade, 56 Kan. 75 (42 Pac. 353). The jury found the defendant guilty. He could not have been guilty of the crime of possessing intoxicating liquor if he had a right to the liquor found in his possession.
But aside from all that the evidence is all before this court. According to the record, including the evi*96deuce, it is the duty of the court to affirm the judgment of the defendant under Article VII, Section 3c, of the Constitution. The defendant was tried by two different juries and convicted by both. A careful consideration of the testimony leaves no doubt in our mind, much less a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty. The defective form of the verdict in nowise contributed to his conviction. The objection made to it is purely technical and does not justify a reversal. There is no claim or pretense that defendant had lawful possession. If he had possession at all, he had unlawful possession.
That part of the original opinion reading as follows: “The objection made to the verdict was not raised to the court below and is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions” is withdrawn because it is not a proper statement of the law.
Rehearing denied. Rehearing Denied.
Rand, J., absent.
Burnett, J., concurs on the constitutional grounds mentioned.