S. S. Snarr v. Commonwealth SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA November 17, 1921 Facts: The defendant, a physician of high reputation in his community discovered that there was something wrong with the steering gear of his automobile when he was about to attend the wedding of a nephew, which was to take place the next day. And his mechanic had told him that it was not a serious problem. On his way he had two collisions with other travelers on the highway, He claims that the cause of these collisions was the failure of the steering apparatus. After the second collision he transferred his valise to a motor truck. He was overtaken by the sheriff and his deputy, who had a warrant charging him with reckless driving. When the officers arrested him upon this warrant he had in his overcoat pocket, which he was at that time wearing, a pint bottle, partly filled with whiskey. This prosecution and conviction is the result of this discovery. Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Rockingham County (Virginia), which convicted him of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 50 and be confined in the county jail for one month. Issues: Whether the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury not to impose a jail sentence? Whether the testimony relating to the other misdemeanor with which he had been charged that is, the reckless driving was relevant to the issue? Discussion: This court held that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury not to impose a jail sentence, upon the ground that there had been no intentional violation of the relevant statute. The court found that the error was injurious, when considered in connection with defendant's testimony that his violation of the statute was inadvertent, because he thought he had the right to carry the quantity of liquor with him in any way that he saw fit. This court held that the accused was on trial for the unlawful transportation of liquor, and it is clear that this testimony was irrelevant and immaterial on that issue. Under the inquisitorial questions of the court, the witness was led to testify that he had heard prior to the case on trial that Dr. Snarr had operated his car while under the influence of liquor. That the accused is a man of very high character cannot be doubted from the testimony. Nothing is found in this record to justify discrediting the testimony of Dr. Snarr on this point. The court had also required the accused, under section 43 (Acts 1918, p. 608), to execute a bond of $ 1,500, conditioned that he would not violate any of the provisions of the act for the term of one year. In a case like this, where a useful citizen of high reputation has violated one of the provisions of this statute, and there is no evidence indicating that he is likely again to do so, it seems to us that to require him to give such a bond is an unnecessary humiliation, and not in the contemplation of the General Assembly. This court is of the opinion that the court erred in the admission of the testimony Conclusion: This court hence reversed the conviction of the defendant of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor and remanded for a new trial. Disclaimer: These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
