State v. Muller

Citations

• 80 Wash. 368
• 141 P. 910
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1326

Syllabus

<p>Evidence—Judicial Notice. The courts will take judicial notice of the fact that in large and populous counties there are many units within the local option law.</p> <p>Intoxicating Liquors—Local Option Law—Violation—Information—Sufficiency—Certainty — Statutes — Construction. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6309, providing that it shall he unlawful to bring intoxicating liquor into any unit in which the sale is prohibited, and § 6310 prescribing the requisites for indictments and informations, dispensing with particular statements in various particulars, such as descriptions of the place and names of the persons to whom sales are made, an information for bringing liquor into a dry unit in a certain county is insufficient where it fails to allege in which one of several dry units the offense was committed, in view of Const., art. 1, § 22, giving the accused the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, and in view of the clause in § 6310, referring to “the unit where the violation is alleged to have occurred.”</p> <p>Same. In such a case, it is immaterial and unnecessary to state from what place the liquor was brought into the dry unit.</p> <p>Same—Information— Guilty Knowledge. An information charging that defendant unlawfully and wilfully brought liquor into a dry unit, sufficiently alleges guilty knowledge and evil intent.</p> <p>Same—Instructions—Elements of Offense. Under the local option law making knowledge an essential element of the offense of bringing liquor into a dry unit, it is error to refuse to instruct the jury that guilty knowledge on the part of the accused was one of the elements of the offense, to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, to warrant a conviction.</p>