Collins v. State

• Decision Date: 10 May 1937
• Docket Number: 32689
• Citation: 178 Miss. 548,174 So. 61
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: COLLINS v. STATE

174 So. 61

178 Miss. 548

COLLINS v. STATE

No. 32689

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 10, 1937

Division B

APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county HON. J. P. ALEXANDER Judge.

Maybelle Collins was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Jaap &amp Higgins, of Jackson, for appellant.

The affidavit and the search warrant must specifically designate the place or places to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

Miller v. State, 129 Miss. 774, 93 So. 2; Smith v. State, 133 Miss. 730, 98 So. 344; Owens v. State, 133 Miss. 753, 98 So. 233; State v. Watson, 133 Miss. 796, 98 So. 241; Loeb v. State, 133 Miss. 883, 98 So. 449; Section 23, Constitution.

Evidence procured unlawfully by an officer is inadmissible in evidence.

Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 845; Williams v. State, 129 Miss. 469, 92 So. 584.

In the case at bar the appellant, according to the officer, admitted the ownership of the whiskey found. We submit, however, that under the holdings of this court an extra-judicial confession cannot be received in evidence until the state shall have proven the corpus delicti by competent evidence aliundi such confession.

Morton v. State, 136 Miss. 284, 101 So. 379.

We submit that it is the law that search warrants should be strictly construed against the state, and a material deficiency in the affidavit or warrant will render the warrant void.

Turner v. State, 133 Miss. 738, 98 So. 240; State v. Watson, 133 Miss. 796, 98 So. 241.

We admit that it is not necessary that a search warrant describe the property to be searched by metes and bounds, section, township and range number, but we do submit as settled law that the warrant describe with such sufficient accuracy that an ordinary man could easily find the property by the description given in the warrant, and we submit that in the case at bar the warrant did not sufficiently describe the property with such accuracy that an ordinary officer or citizen could find it without confusion, and for this reason we respectfully submit that the learned trial judge should have sustained the objections to the evidence and directed a verdict of not guilty.

W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

The fact that the occupants of the house were unknown does not vitiate the description.

Banks v. City of Jackson, 152 Miss. 844, 120 So. 209.

This court has heretofore held that a description of the premises to be searched was good which stated it was occupied by a named person "at or near" named place.

Borders v. State, 138 Miss. 788, 104 So. 145.

Also a description was held sufficient which merely stated it was occupied by named party in named county.

Bradley v. State, 134 Miss. 20, 98 So. 458; Forshee v. State, 152 Miss. 566, 120 So. 462; Cangelosi v. State, 172 Miss. 252, 159 So. 846.

This court is apparently committed to the proposition that a description is sufficient if it will enable an officer to locate the premises definitely and with certainty. It does not have to be as specific as one by which real estate is conveyed. Under the rules of this court and the decisions above referred to, we submit the description is sufficient. The house to be searched was the one on the west end of a row of houses just south of a certain lumber company and known as a certain lumber company's houses and that was the house searched, according to the officer's testimony.

The minutes of the court will control as to the jury's verdict and not the stenographer's notes. Such judgment imports absolute verity and will control.

Dunaway v. State, 157 Miss. 615, 128 So. 770; Lewis v. State, 153 Miss. 759, 121 So. 492; Mask v. Town of Pontotoc, 152 Miss. 148, 119 So. 156; Dees v. State, 151 Miss. 46, 117 So. 369.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

Appellant, Maybelle Collins, was convicted in a justice of the peace court of Hinds county on an indictment charging the possession of intoxicating liquor; appealed to the county court, where she was again convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 250 and to serve thirty days in jail, which sentence was affirmed by the circuit court; and the circuit judge having said that a constitutional question was involved, the case comes here for review.

The search warrant procured by the deputy sheriff was made on an affidavit reciting that: "This day, J. T. Hale, on information, came and personally appeared before the undersigned, a justice of the peace for 1st district of said county, and makes oath that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that intoxicating liquors are being manufactured or possessed for purpose of sale, or sold, or offered for sale, or given away, in violation of law, in the dwelling house, outhouses, on the premises, in the automobiles or other vehicles used or occupied by unknown occupants of the first house furthest West of the five yellow houses just South of the Porter Gooch Lumber Company, said houses known as the Porter Gooch Lumber Company houses, in said county and state, and this belief is not feigned of malice against the said unknown occupants, but is founded on credible information in that the affiant has been informed by a credible person that such is a fact."

A search warrant having been issued, a search was made of the house occupied by appellant, and the following return was made: "I have this day executed the within search warrant personally serving a copy of same on Maybelle Collins, and by searching the premises...