252 S.W. 105 (Ky.App. 1923), Goode v. Commonwealth
|Citation:||252 S.W. 105, 199 Ky. 755|
|Opinion Judge:||MOORMAN, J.|
|Party Name:||GOODE v. COMMONWEALTH.|
|Attorney:||J. R. White, of Glasgow, for appellant. Chas. I. Dawson, Atty. Gen., and T. B. McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.|
|Judge Panel:||Whole Court, except McCANDLESS, J., sitting.|
|Case Date:||June 15, 1923|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Kentucky|
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barren County.
Charles Henry Goode was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The ground alleged for a reversal of this judgment is the admission of testimony procured under a search warrant that is said to be illegal because of the affidavit on which it was issued.
The affidavit states:
"That there are reasonable grounds to believe, and he (affiant) does believe, that whisky is kept unlawfully on the premises, residence, and outbuildings and place occupied by Walter Gray and Chas. Henry Goode in the town of Glasgow, Ky."
It then definitely describes the premises, and says:
"This affiant states that he bases his opinion and belief upon the following facts, to wit: That H. Mansfield came to him not more than an hour ago from the time this affidavit is written, and told this affiant that he visited said premises as described above and that he (the person giving this information) the said H. Mansfield, says he saw whisky in bottles and fruit jars, jugs and kegs on a table in said house occupied by said Grady and Goode, and that he saw some about 8 o'clock a. m. on the day this affidavit was written."
On this affidavit W. E. Jones, judge of the police court of Glasgow, issued the search warrant in question. It is contended by appellant that the affidavit is insufficient in that it fails to show the "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation," required by section 10 of our Constitution.
Probable cause, in cases of malicious prosecution, has been frequently defined by the courts as that which affords a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong within themselves to warrant a cautious person in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense of which he is charged. And it has been held that while mere conjectures and suspicions will not warrant a prosecution, credible information received from others might well be enough to induce such action, although proof that the information came from an unreliable source would be important in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP