Byrd v. State

• Citation: 30 S.W.2d 273,161 Tenn. 306
• Parties: BYRD v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 19 July 1930
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

30 S.W.2d 273

161 Tenn. 306

BYRD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 19, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wilson County; Albert Williams, Judge.

R. H Byrd was convicted of possessing a still, and he brings error.

Reversed.

T. B Finley, of Lebanon, for plaintiff in error.

Nat Tipton, of Nashville, for the State.

CHAMBLISS J.

Appealing from a conviction of possessing a still, error is assigned alone on the admission of the testimony of the officers who searched the premises of the defendant without a warrant. The state's insistence is that the entry and search were by the consent of the wife, in the absence of the husband.

The sheriff testified that, accompanied by two deputy sheriffs "I went to the premises where the defendant Byrd lived. I went to the door and defendant's wife and her mother were there. I asked them where the defendant was, and they said he had gone to pick salad. I told defendant's wife I had reports that her husband was engaged in making and selling whiskey, and that I would like to come in and look around. She said alright, come in. I told her I had no search warrant, but would like to come in and look around. She invited us in and we searched around in the house and found in the house a small copper still and about three or four gallons of whiskey; white corn whiskey." He said that he later found a bucket of salad by the house, and saw a man he took to be the defendant run away.

We have no reported case in this state directly in point. In Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 267, 65 L.Ed. 654, the testimony of the officers was rejected. In that case it was found that the wife acted under an implied coercion, and the decision was put on that ground, the court reserving the question arising under facts showing no coercion. In the Amos Case the government officers "went to defendant's home, and, not finding him there, but finding a woman who said she was his wife, told her that they were revenue officers and had come to search the premises 'for violations of the revenue law'; that thereupon the woman opened the store and the witnesses entered, and in a barrel of peas found a bottle containing" whisky "and that they then went into the home of defendant, and on searching found two bottles under the quilt on the bed," containing whisky. Construing this conduct of the officers as "demanding admission" to make a search under government authority, the court found that the wife acted under implied coercion.

It is...