Opinion
Opinion April 4, 1930.
CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Where there is sufficient evidence to justify a jury in finding that in a trial on a charge of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, admittance was denied to deputies until they attempted to force a door, that upon entry they saw respondent coming out of a toilet, alcohol having been poured into the toilet bowl, the kitchen itself smelling of alcohol, a milk bottle in the sink having a small quantity of alcoholic liquid in the bottom and two quarts of alcohol in a gallon can in a stairway leading to the tenement above, to which respondent and his family alone had proper access, the conclusion was properly reached by the jury that the respondent had intoxicating liquor in his possession intended for sale.
On exceptions. Respondent was tried upon a complaint for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors. To the refusal of the presiding Judge, on motion of the respondent, to instruct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty" respondent excepted. Exceptions overruled. Judgment for the State.
The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
Ralph M. Ingalls, County Attorney,
Walter M. Tapley, Assistant County Attorney, for the State.
John J. Clancey, David E. Knapp, for respondent.
SITTING: PATTANGALL, C. J., DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, JJ. MORRILL, A. R. J.
Exception to denial of motion for directed verdict in the trial of the respondent for illegal possession of intoxicating liquor.
Upon the evidence, the jury were warranted in finding that, when deputy sheriffs searched the respondent's premises on August 3, 1929, admittance was denied them until they attempted to force the door. Upon entering the kitchen, they saw the respondent coming out of the toilet, alcohol had been poured into the toilet bowl, the kitchen itself smelled of alcohol, and a milk bottle in the sink had a small quantity of alcoholic liquid in the bottom. Two quarts of alcohol in a gallon can were found in a hide in a stairway leading up from the tenement above, to which, except for trespassers, the respondent and his family alone had access.
From these facts, the jury could have properly reached the conclusion that the respondent had intoxicating liquor in his possession, intended for sale. State v. Baranski, 127 Me. 488. There was no error in the refusal of the presiding Justice to direct a verdict.
Exceptions overruled. Judgment for the State.