State v. Neidermark

Possession of Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence—Conflict—Sufficiency. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, and there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdiet, such verdict will not be disturbed.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, for Shoshone County. Hon. Wm. W. Woods, Judge. Prosecution for the crime of possessing intoxicating liquor to be used for beverage purposes. Judgment of conviction. Defendant appeals. Where the evidence leaves the defendant’s guilt in doubt, a new trial should be granted, as contrary to the evidence. (Reynolds v. State, 24 Ga. 427; Rafferty v. People, 72 111. 37; Stout v. State, 78 Ind. 492; State v. Hilton, 22 Iowa, 241; Crandall v. State, 28 Ohio St. 479; State v. Kane, 1 McCord L. (S. C.) 482; Owens v. State, 35 Tex. 361; Brite v. State, 10 Tex. App. 368; Ellis v. State, 10 Tex. App. 540; Saltillo v. State, 16 Tex. App. 249; Bean v. Conmwnwealth, 32 Gratt. (Ya.) 912.) In a civil case, an appellate court will not disturb the verdict if there is any evidence to support it. In a criminal case, however, a new trial will be granted when the evidence preponderates against the verdict. (Territory v. Reuss, 5 Mont. 605, 5 Pac. 885; Leahe v. State, 29 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 144; State v. Curtis, 30 Ida. 537, 165 Pac. 999.) The rule is well settled that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence and there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict, such verdict will not be disturbed. (State v. Silva, 21 Ida. 247, 120 Pac. 835; State v. Downing, 23 Ida. 540, 130 Pac. 461; State v. Mox Mox, 28 Ida. 176, 152 Pac. 802; Stdte v.- White, 33 Ida. 697, 197 Pac. 824; State v. Colvard, 33 Ida. 702, 197 Pae. 826.)