{
  "id": 8722005,
  "name": "Winston v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Winston v. State",
  "decision_date": "1921-09-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "606",
  "last_page": "608",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 Ark. 606"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "136 Ark. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1569966
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/136/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 Ark. 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571550
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/135/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ark. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1521453
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/86/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ark. 7",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1497232
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/78/0007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ark. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1500985
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/76/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ark. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1504016
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/73/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ark. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ark. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1519157
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/87/0017-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ark. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1905703
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/62/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ark. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1312211
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/100/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ark. 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898663
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/39/0278-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ark. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1517130
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/88/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ark. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511779
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/91/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ark. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1592908
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/141/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ark. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1870956
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/37/0408-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ark. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907326
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/64/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ark. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1507885
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/71/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ark. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524390
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/84/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ark. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1905697
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/62/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ark. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "364"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ark. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580485
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/129/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ark. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1592908
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/141/0276-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 4602,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4732891763187738
    },
    "sha256": "e2f9fb320c79a8c4dd0d713f5b27070b5c504a169be3a7d86caa92e5fbe4cd08",
    "simhash": "1:ba69bbcb0e5cd439",
    "word_count": 751
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:49.179900+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Winston v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on an indictment which charged that the appellant \u201cunlawfully and feloniously did manufacture and unlawfully and feloniously was interested in the manufacturing of one pint .of alcoholic, ardent, vinous and intoxicating spirits commonly called \u201cwhiskey.\u201d The appellant denied that he had manufactured any whiskey. There was testimony from which the jury might have found that the appellant had manufactured whiskey. There was also testimony from which the jury might have found that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of \u201cchoc beer,\u201d and not whiskey.\nThe court gave one instruction which contained several independent propositions of law in separate paragraphs, but the paragraphs were not numbered. In one of the paragraphs the court instructed the jury in part as follows: \u2018 \u2018 The material allegations in the indictment are, that the accused, within three years and in Faulkner County, Arkansas, before the return of this indictment, unlawfully and feloniously manufactured alcoholic, ardent, vinous and intoxicating liquors. To tbis indictment, defendant pleads not guilty, and that casts the burden upon the State of proving same beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find from the evidence in this case that the defendant did manufacture any intoxicating liquor used and drunk as a beverage whether it contained one hundred per cent.- or one per cent, is immaterial under this statute; he would be guilty of violating this law. \u2019 \u2019\nThe appellant objected \u201cto each and every instruction given by the court on its own motion.\u201d The court overruled the objection, to which ruling the appellant excepted. The objection was not en grosse, but was to \u201ceach\u201d instruction or declaration of law that the court gave. Although the several declarations of law were not separately numbered, yet each one of these declarations, which were independent and different in meaning, must be treated as a separate instruction. The term \u201cwhiskey\u201d in the indictment was descriptive of the offense, and it was incumbent on the State to prove the charge of manufacturing \u201cwhiskey\u201d as alleged. Carleton v. State, 129 Ark. 361, and cases there cited. See, also, Sheffield, v. State, 141 Ark. 276. But, under the instruction given by the court, the jury was authorized to find the appellant guilty if they found that he \u201cunlawfully and feloniously manufactured alcoholic, ardent, vinous and intoxicating liquors used and drunk as a beverage, \u2019 \u2019 whether such liquor was whiskey or not. In other words, the jury was authorized to find, and under the testimony may have found, that the appellant manufactured intoxicating liquor called \u201cchoc beer\u201d to be used and drunk as a beverage. The instruction was erroneous.\nWe do not discuss other assignments of error because they may not arise on another trial. For the error of the court as indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Winston v. State.\nOpinion delivered September 26, 1921.\nIntoxicating liquoRS \u2014 manufacture of whisKey \u2014 instruction. \u2014 Under an indictment for manufacturing \u201cwhiskey\u201d, it was error to instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty if he manufactured any intoxicating liquor.\nAppeal from Faulkner Circuit Court; George W. Clark, Judge;\nreversed.\nThe indictment charges the manufacture of' whiskey. Proof of making choc beer is not sufficient. The words \u201ccommonly called whiskey\u201d used in the indictment are descriptive of the offense charged. 129 Ark. 362, 364; 62 Ark. 459; 84 Ark. 285; 71 Ark. 415; 64 Ark. 188; 37 Ark. 408; 141 Ark. 276. One offense cannot be proved by evidence of another, unless the two are so related as to form a part of the same transaction. 91 Ark. 555; 88 Ark. 579; 39 Ark. 278; 100 Ark. 321; 62 Ark. 126.\nJ. S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.\n1. Evidence of other offenses or acts similar to the one charged in an indictment is competent for the purpose of showing knowledge, intent or design. - 87 Ark. 17.\nWhere the defendant, testifying in his own \u00a1behalf, is asked on cross-examination improper and incompetent questions to' which he returns negative answers, no prejudice results to him. Garrison v. State, Ms. Op.\n2. A general objection to several instructions will not be considered an appeal, if any of them was good. 105 Ark. 15; 73 Ark. 315; 75 Ark. 182; 76 Ark. 41; Id. 482; 78 Ark. 7; 86 Ark. 103.\n3. Appellants request for peremptory instruction was properly refused. The facts and circumstances prove the defendant guilty as charged. 135 Ark. 117; 136 Ark. 385."
  },
  "file_name": "0606-01",
  "first_page_order": 632,
  "last_page_order": 634
}