Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 Miss. 484

Gaston v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1914

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1914-03-15

Hon. J. A. Teat, Judge. Jack Gaston was convicted of unlawful retailing of intoxicating liquors and appeals. Held: in the case of Hogget v. State, 57 So. 812, that: “Where a greater punishment may be inflicted for a second subsequent violation of a penal law than for the first, the fact that the offense is for a second or subsequent violation must be directly averred in the information or indictment to justify the increased punishment,” the court…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1914-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1975

4 state decisions

101914192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Reed, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Appellant was convicted on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and as punishment therefor was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for six months.

¶3We find that appellant was given a fair trial, that the court did not commit.any error in the trial, and that the verdict of guilty is supported by the evidence.

¶4. The statute under which the indictment was returned is chapter'214 of the Laws of 1912. The' punishment therein provided for the first conviction for an offense committed after the passage of the law is a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, and imprisonment in the county jail'for not less than one week nor more than three months. If the conviction is for an offense under the statute committed after a conviction and punishment for a former offense thereunder, then the punishment is by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment in the county jail not less than sixty days nor more than six months.

¶5In this case the indictment does not charge a former conviction of the offense. Appellant was charged, tried, and convicted as for a first offense. The court should not have sentenced appellant to imprisonment for six months. Under the statute, the imprisonment could not have been for a longer term than three months.

¶6*486The case is affirmed, and is remanded for the purpose only of resentencing appellant.

¶7Affirmed and remanded.

/107/miss/484 · .json · Public domain