October 22, 1927.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
John Applegate was convicted of the sale of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
G.W. Lamson, for Appellant.
The evidence was sufficient to create a suspicion only and was purely circumstantial and insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt.
"The circumstances must be consistent with the guilt of the defendant and inconsistent with his innocence." ( State v. Marcoe, 33 Idaho 284, 193 P. 80; Broshears v. State, 17 Okl. Cr. 192, 187 P. 254; State v. Dawn, 42 Idaho 210, 245 P. 74; State v. Lewis, 70 Mont. 61, 223 P. 915.)
If the evidence is consistent with both innocence and guilt then the doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
Frank L. Stephan, Attorney General, and John W. Cramer and Leon M. Fisk, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.
Where the evidence is conflicting the court will not disturb the verdict of the jury. ( State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 232 Pac. 1; State v. Shepard, 39 Idaho 666, 229 P. 87; State v. Bouchard, 27 Idaho 500, 149 P. 464.)
The appellant, John Applegate, was convicted in the district court of Canyon county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to serve four months in jail and pay a fine of $300. The liquor alleged to have been sold consisted of a number of bottles of home-made beer. The record shows that on the trial the defendant admitted the possession of, but denied any sale of, liquor.
The only error assigned by appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
We have carefully examined the record, and find no reversible error. The evidence as to the sale is conflicting, and the jury having found that a sale of intoxicating liquor was made by the defendant Applegate, following the rule laid down by this court in the case of State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 232 P. 1, State v. Shepard, 39 Idaho 666, 229 P. 87, and State v. Bouchard, 27 Idaho 500, 149 P. 464, that where the evidence is conflicting, the court will not disturb the verdict of the jury, we recommend that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.
Babcock and Adair, CC., concur.
The foregoing is approved as the opinion of the court and the judgment is affirmed.