Cochran v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 34391. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | COCHRAN v. STATE. |
W A. Townsend and G. S. Landrum, both of Kosciusko, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
The Sheriff of Attala County had a search warrant directing him to search the place and the premises operated as a dance hall by Charley and Leslie Faulker in that county. In the execution of the warrant, the sheriff found a quantity of beer in an ice box in the place and also three slot machines. The sheriff saw the appellant on the outside of the building conversing with some parties in an automobile. The officer testified that he had frequently seen appellant at this place during the past thirty or sixty days, and that on some of those occasions the actions of appellant gave the appearance that he was delivering whiskey to the occupants of automobiles, although the sheriff did not say that he had actually seen appellant make any such deliveries.
When the sheriff found the beer and slot machines, he went outside and arrested appellant, and says in his testimony that he made the arrest "for the beer and slot machines". But before actually making the arrest he asked appellant "Do you work here?" To which appellant replied "I work here" or "I stay here", the sheriff not being able to say which one of these expressions was used. Whereupon the sheriff said: "I am arresting you for the possession of beer and slot machines."
The arrest being accomplished, search was thereupon made by the sheriff of the person of appellant, and concealed under appellant's shirt, two bottles of whiskey were found, for the possession of which appellant was afterwards prosecuted and convicted.
The sheriff had no warrant for the arrest of appellant, and it is admitted that the officer had no probable cause at the time which would authorize the arrest for the possession of the whiskey. The question is, therefore, whether the arrest was authorized for the possession of the beer or slot machines, as being an offense committed by appellant in the presence of the arresting officer.
If appellant was employed at this place, the nature of his employment is undisclosed, and there is not a word that he had any control over, or any part in, the beer or slot machines; but it is not necessary that we enter upon a consideration as to when and under what circumstances an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State
...or combination in the wrong done, although he approves the act. ¶ 109. Scott based his proposed instruction on Cochran v. State, 191 Miss. 273, 276, 2 So.2d 822, 823 (1941). However, this case is clearly distinguishable from the circumstances in Cochran. In Cochran, the Sheriff of Attala Co......
-
Canning v. State, 45479
...will justify him in arresting without a warrant.' 6 C.J.S. Arrest § 6, p. 596 (1937). This Court held in the case of Cochran v. State, 191 Miss. 273, 2 So.2d 822 (1941) that the arrest of a person seen on the outside of a building at a place where the officers were carrying on a lawful sear......
-
Hughes v. State, No. 2007-KA-00209-SCT.
...a crime or mere association with the members of a conspiracy is not enough to prove participation in it." Id. ¶ 16. In Cochran v. State, 191 Miss. 273, 2 So.2d 822 (1941), Cochran was arrested for possession of beer and slot machines inside a dance hall. Cochran, 2 So.2d at 822. This Court ......
-
Davis v. State, 90-KA-0477
... ... By way of contrast, proof that one stood by at the commission of a crime without taking steps to prevent it does not alone indicate participation or combination in a wrong done, although the person approves the act. Cochran v. State, 191 ... Miss. 273, 276, 2 So.2d 822, 823 (1941). Guilt by association is neither a recognized nor tolerable concept in our criminal law. Pryor v. State, 239 So.2d 911, 912 (Miss.1970); Matula v. State, 220 So.2d 833, 836 (Miss.1969) ... Davis strenuously argues that ... ...