State v. Hatfield

• Citation: 164 S.E. 518,112 W.Va. 424
• Decision Date: 07 June 1932
• Docket Number: 7212.
• Parties: STATE v. HATFIELD et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

164 S.E. 518

112 W.Va. 424

STATE v. HATFIELD et al.

No. 7212.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 7, 1932

Submitted May 24, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

Officers if having information of commission of felony, may stop all persons using highway in vicinity of crime in nighttime for identification.

Where occupants of automobile, stopped in vicinity of crime, reveal present violation of law, officers may arrest occupants and incidentally search automobile.

Evidence of crime found in incidental search of automobile at time of arrest of occupants for present violation of law held admissible.

1. Officers, with information of the commission of a felony may, for the purpose of apprehending the perpetrator thereof stop all persons using the highway in the vicinity of the crime in the nighttime for the purpose of identification.

2. Where an automobile is so stopped, and the occupants thereof by their acts, reveal a present violation on their part, such officers may arrest such offenders, and, as an incident thereto, search the automobile. And the evidence of crime found in such search may be used against the occupants thereof.

Error to Circuit Court, Mingo County.

Hobart Hatfield and another were conviced for the larceny of certain merchandise, and they bring error.

Judgment affirmed.

W. H. D. Preece, of Williamson, for plaintiff in error.

Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and R. A. Blessing, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WOODS J.

Hobart Hatfield, Barnes Osborne, Enoch Darby, and Bud Bailey were jointly indicted (1) for breaking and entering a certain building in Mingo county, belonging to Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Company and used as a store building, with intent to commit larceny; (2) for entering said building without breaking, etc.; and (3) for the larceny of certain merchandise of the total value of $419.34 Darby and Bailey confessed to the breaking and entering and the removal of the merchandise. Hatfield and Osborne, however, stood trial, denying any knowledge of the theft. The state, after introducing her evidence in chief, elected to proceed on the third count. The present writ of error is prosecuted to a judgment entered on a jury verdict of "guilty as charged in the within indictment."

Defendants state that they left home (Amico, Raleigh county) in Osborne's Essex coach, early April 15, 1930, for Red Jacket, a distance of 130 miles, in search of work; that about 4 o'clock p.m., and while in the vicinity of Red Jacket, Darby and Bailey obtained Osborne's car to go to Matewan to "look around" while Osborne and Hatfield walked up the hollow a mile and a quarter to certain coal operations to inquire about work; that Osborne and Hatfield waited from dark until midnight for the return of Darby and Bailey; that upon their arrival Osborne inquired concerning the merchandise which he found stacked in the back of his car, and was advised that it had been purchased at a sale; thereupon Osborne resumed his place at the wheel, Hatfield and Darby in the front seat with him, and Bailey, the smallest, located himself upon the merchandise. After the parties had traveled about 18 miles in the direction of home, they were flagged by state police, who checked the license plates with the registration card. During this interrogation, an occupant of the car threw something over the bank, which one of the officers found to be a pearl handle 32-caliber pistol. Thereupon the four men were placed under arrest and directed to alight, and the car searched without any protest on the part of its former occupants. The search revealed a large quantity of merchandise, later found to belong to Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Company, and two shotguns, a brace and bit, and a jimmy belonging to the defendants.

Without reciting further facts, it suffices to say that the evidence clearly supports the verdict, providing the reference to the goods found in the car was proper. Defendants contend that the latter was inadmissible, it appearing that the officers did not have a search warrant for the car. They cite State v. Andrews, 91 W.Va. 720, 114 S.E. 257, and State v. Wills, 91 W.Va. 659, 114 S.E. 261, 24 A. L R. 1398, in support of their proposition. The latter case holds that an unlawful...