606— _ 1314-Y-Lecic v._.STATE. _[187_ BLAYLOCK v. STATE.
Crim. 3838
Opinien delivered June 12:1933. INTOXICATING LIQUOR—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — In a prosecution for selling liquor, a conviction will not be sustained, in absence of any substaritial evidence of accused's guilt, by proving, in rebuttal of testimony of 'witnesses who testified that they did not purchase any liquor from accused, that such witnesses had told the rebuttal witness that they had bought liquor from the accused • -
ARK.1 , BLAYLOCK V: STATE. '607 • Appnal • from Franklin . Circifit Court, Ozark District J:' O. Kincaniion,'JUdge; reVerSed:_'' • • . . Hal L..Norwood, Attorney General, and Robert F. thWith,. Assistant, Tor appellee. BUTLER . , J,. The .. appellant -was ,indicted,, tried and convicted for selling alcoholic liquors. The testimony on behalf .of . the: State was to the effect . that about two and a. half miles from a small town was a cedar thicket - near. the road in which it was the-custom.of those- coming to. town and having . liquor, to hide it.. On a certain day two officers went into the thicket and hearing voices approached . to a place yhere two men.were,in conversation, .who upon seeing the officers began to .run:but were. halted and captured .and• found . to have liquor in their. possession. The appellant : was not with them at. this time. • • The' two men who were. arreted testified that on the. day of their arrest they saw the appellant in town .and _asked him if hn knew where theY , could get any liquor, And he told them he thought he aid_ They got into appellant's car with him and started out' toward the cedar thicket, and when they had gone about -half way Soma car trouble developed. They got : out. • and- went on foot to the thicket leaving the appellant at the car. They began to look for whiskey and found some. behind a rock. They did not know to whom this whiskey belonged but took possession of it or a fiart -of ifjUSt before the officers appeared. They did not • pnrchase the liquor from the appellant and, did . not tell _the officers that they had. The. appellant testified that he 'had been told .that peOpla ' peddling liquor would hide it idthe cedar thicket And when he was asked if.he knew where any -liquor was he started with the two men to the thicket, but that he had not placed any liquor there and did not in . fact know that there y as any at that place.- One of the officers was called-in rebuttal by the State .and, without any objection being interposed, testified to the -effect that the two med . Who 'we'fe arrested by the officers and who testified in the case . told him that they had bought the liquor frOni the api3ellant.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.