Court Opinion

ID: 9589516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:45:32.078715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:40.199162
License: Public Domain

*265Smith, J.,
dissenting.
When the facts, as set forth in the majority opinion, are measured by the rule of Trent v. Commonwealth, 155 Va. 1128, 156 S. E. 567, the decision reached apparently follows. However, I don’t believe that the record supports the factual conclusion reached. A few excerpts from the testimony of each of the Commonwealth’s witnesses show why this is true.
J. L. Blackburn, the A. B. C. investigator, has this to say:
“Q. Was it ready for distillation?
“A. I don’t believe it was quite ready. I think it would have been ready the next day. Of course, they run that stuff quite sometime—you just can’t tell when they are going to run it. It is hard to tell. From the evidence there, they had not operated the still. The mash was there, but they had never completely set up the still. They had put up the boiler there and they had bored a hole in the top of the still and were just finishing setting up the still. I imagine they would have been operating the next day.
#**###*
“Q. Was any pipe leading from the doubler?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. And was there any condenser or what you would term a coil there?
“A. No, sir. Actually the still had not been put in place. It was right there but had not been put in place like they usually do them.”
Sheriff A. B. Shackelton testified, in part, as follows:
“Q. Was it a complete distilling apparatus from your own experience?
“A. No, sir. The worm had not come nor the cap there. I don’t think. (Addressing the Court.) But Mr. Blackburn took a memorandum of what was there, Judges I didn’t.
“Q. And it was not connected up?
“A. No, sir.
*266“Q. And from what you saw the day following the apprehension, the still had not yet been operated?
“A. No, sir; I don’t think so.”
On this phase of the case Deputy Sheriff H. S. Wallace was questioned as follows:
“Q. What did you find at the still?
“A. We found the barrels as Mr. Blackburn told you, and the meal and chips tuff; and the boiler was sitting on the furnace but had not been coupled up.
“Q. Had you seen distilling equipment similar to that you saw on this occasion?
“A. Yes, sir; I had seen a lot of them.
“Q. Was a complete distilling unit there?
“A. I didn’t ever see any worm where they cool the whiskey with. There is so much red tape in putting up these things I believe I could not put up one if you laid it out here on the floor.”
The defendant’s testimony as to the whereabouts of the coil or worm is set out in the majority opinion and need not be repeated here.
It is clear from the testimony that the defendant and his accomplice were malting preparations to illegally manufacture alcoholic beverages, and were guilty of illegally possessing distilling apparatus in violation of Code, § 4-77 and should have been punished only under count # 2 of the indictment. Nowhere does the evidence show, however, that the accused had gone beyond the stage' of preparation.
The authorities agree that it is impossible to formulate a general rule or definition of what constitutes an attempt which may be applied as a test in all cases and that each case must be determined on its own facts. Although it is difficult to draw a fine line of distinction between the point where preparations end and an attempt begins, this does not eliminate the fact that this distinction exists. Preparations consist in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offense,- while the attempt is the direct movement toward the commission after the preparations are *267made. The majority have failed to recognize that in the chain of events which constitutes the illegal manufacture of alcoholic beverages there is a clear distinction between preliminary preparation on the one hand and the beginning of the consummation on the other hand. It is only the latter which is the attempt.
In the Trent case this court stated that, “It is inherently and patently impossible to distill alcohol without the aid of some device which serves the purpose of a ‘worm.’ (Italics added). And so if we were to assume that the ‘worm’ was in fact absent that would end this case.” The court then went on to say that in the absence of other testimony it would assume that the worm was in close proximity. However, it will be recalled that in the Trent case the still had been in operation, whiskey had been manufactured, and there was a fire under the boiler and all the evidence pointed to the consummation of the act. It was under this state of facts that the court made its assumption that the worm was present.
There is a vast difference between the facts here and those in the Trent case. The defendant’s uncontradicted testimony places the worm in Richmond, which, coupled with the unanimous testimony of the Commonwealth’s witnesses that the still was not in operating condition, removes any basis for an assumption that there was a worm in the vicinity and takes this case outside the rule laid down in the Trent case.
To manufacture liquor it is necessary to assemble and mix various materials and store them to await the period of fermentation. While there is no evidence before us as to the exact time required for this process, we may say with reasonable assurance that it is at least several days. Besides the raw materials, a still complete with boiler and worm is needed to complete the process of distillation. The uncontradicted testimony establishes the fact that the mash was not ready for distillation and that the still was not in condition to accomplish the distillation process. The consummation of the crime of manufacturing alcoholic beverages was then *268impossible and, therefore, there was no attempt to commit that crime. In my opinion the defendant’s activities never reached beyond the preparations stage and it follows that the evidence does not support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt of an attempt to manufacture alcoholic beverages without a license.