TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Critzer

The State of Washington v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant The City of Spokane v. J. W. Critzer

State v. Critzer, 209 P. 1081 (Wash. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 25, 1922
Docket
No. 17077
Judges
Hovey
Citations
209 P. 1081122 Wash. 881922 Wash. LEXIS 1077

Opinion of the Court — Hovey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hovey, J.

-Defendant was charged by the state with manufacturing intoxicating liquor in Spokane county, and another charge was made against him by the city of Spokane of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in violation of the city ordinances. The two cases were consolidated and tried by one jury, and the defendant was convicted in each case.

The evidence showed that defendant had a still in the basement of the building occupied by him which was in active operation at the time he was arrested, and that from corn mash he was producing distilled moonshine whiskey. Samples of the liquor were in *89 troduced in evidence and its character was testified to by several witnesses. The percentage of alcohol in the liquor was not shown, and appellant makes the point in this court that, inasmuch as it appeared from the testimony that moonshine whiskey has not the same degree of proof as standard whiskey, there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury under the charges made, and it is claimed that moonshine whiskey is not embraced within the term “whiskey.” The statute expressly names whiskey as one of the liquors which it is forbidden to manufacture or possess and the law is not concerned with the degree of its strength. The liquor in question is the distilled product of corn, and the fact that it had only gone through one process of distillation does not render it any the less a commodity prohibited by law.

Both of the judgments will be affirmed.

Parker, C. J., Main, Holcomb, and Mackintosh, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1924: 21925: 11926: 31927: 119242026peak 1926 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Schuck201 N.W. 342 (N.D. 1924)
  2. State v. Smith200 N.W. 638 (Wis. 1924)
  3. State v. Sedlacek239 P. 1002 (Mont. 1925)
  4. State ex rel. Parsons v. Kaufman211 N.W. 691 (S.D. 1927)
  5. State v. Cook208 N.W. 556 (N.D. 1926) · Concurrence
  6. State v. Bogdon248 P. 66 (Wash. 1926)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Parsons v. Kaufman211 N.W. 691 (S.D. 1927)
  2. State v. Bogdon248 P. 66 (Wash. 1926)
  3. State v. Cook208 N.W. 556 (N.D. 1926) · Concurrence
  4. Weller v. State132 A. 624 (Md. 1926)
  5. State v. Sedlacek239 P. 1002 (Mont. 1925)
  6. State v. Schuck201 N.W. 342 (N.D. 1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list