State v. Steinle

Citations

• 116 Wash. 608
• 200 P. 313
• 1921 Wash. LEXIS 976

Syllabus

<p>Crimina!. Law (460)—Intoxicating Liquors (30, 51)—Unlawful Possession—Former Convictions—Instructions. In a prosecution for the aggravated offense of bootlegging after having been previously convicted of violation of the liquor laws, under Laws 1917, ch. 19, which provides (§15) that a certified record of a former conviction “shall be sufficient evidence and proof of such previous conviction or convictions,” it is error to instruct that the jury had no right to take into consideration the prior conviction of defendant of the offense of violating the liquor laws of the state, except so far as it might affect his credibility as a witness; since under Art. 1, §22, of the constitution, guaranteeing the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, the legislature could not empower the courts to declare as a matter of law that the “proof” produced was sufficient.</p> <p>Same (460)—Intoxicating Liquors—Former Convictions—Statutes—Amendment—Proof and Sufficiency of Evidence. An instruction in a prosecution for bootlegging that, if the jury failed to find the defendant guilty of that charge, they might find him guilty of the lesser charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was erroneous, where the evidence on which the instruction was based was that, at another time and place, a small quantity of intoxicating liquor of similar appearance was found at his home, which was considerably distant from' the place where he was charged with bootlegging.</p>