State v. BlairState v. Blair
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sherburne
Thе respondent has been convicted of furnishing intoxicating liquor to one William McCarty, and comes here upоn exceptions. The respondent ran a restaurant in Rich-ford, and the evidence tended to show that in Novеmber, 1936, he served gin to McCarty in the kitchen in back of the restaurant upon оne .occasion, and in the dining room of the restaurant about three timеs. In reply to a question if the respоndent served him intoxicating liquor about the first of November, McCarty answered: “Yеah, I think the first of November.” It did not appear in what part of November thе other acts of furnishing took plaсe.
At the close of the evidenсe the respondent asked the State to elect as to which datе in November the count in the complaint was to apply. Thereupоn, in reply to a question by the court, thе State’s attorney answered: “We rely upon the furnishing about the first of November.” To this respondent’s counsel replied: “Well, then we object and ask that the State elect as to the furnishing to McCarty which one of-the three times we rely upon,” and the court said: “Respondent’s motion denied .and exception allowed. ’ ’
There cаn be no question but that the respondent was entitled to have the State elect as to which offense it relied upon. State v. Coomer, 105 Vt. 175, 178, 163 Atl. 585, 94 A. L. R. 1038. Instead of denying the last request it would have been better for the court to have stated that the State had already made an eleсtion, as we think that a sufficient eleсtion was made by the reply of the State’s attorney to the court’s questiоn. No error appears.
It should be noted that the date was the only mаtter discussed. Had the State been asked to elect as to the place where the offense was сommitted, whether in the kitchen or in the dining rоom, another question might be presented.
Exceptions overruled. Let exectition be done.