Evans v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1962 |
| Citation | 13 McCanless 453,354 S.W.2d 263,209 Tenn. 453 |
| Parties | , 209 Tenn. 453 Clyde EVANS v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Thomas E. Mitchell, Johnson City, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Clyde Evans was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquors and was fined $500.00 and sentenced to 30 days in the county workhouse. He appealed in error and insists that there was no evidence to support the verdict, and that the evidence on which the verdict rests was inadmissible because it was obtained by an illegal search in violation of his constitutional rights.
The State put on one witness, Cecil Street, formerly a deputy sheriff. He testified that he and another deputy sheriff, Floyd Humphreys, obtained a search warrant, the original of which is sent up as part of the bill of exceptions. It charged that 'John or Jane Doe alias' was in unlawful possession of a quantity of intoxicating liquors on 'premises used and occupied by' them, which it described thus:
Under this search warrant, these two officers went to the home of defendant, searched it, but found no intoxicating liquor. Then they went back behind his house across a driveway or street about 100 feet to another house, called in the record a 'garage apartment' or 'apartment house,' and there under the steps at the back porch of that house, they found 15 pints of whiskey. When they asked Evans about it, 'he said it wasn't his.'
It appears that that house was not a part of the outhouses appurtenant to the premises described in the warrant, but was separated therefrom by a paved road which defendant used as a driveway to the rear of his house, but which his witness Queen said was also a public street, Spruce Street, in Johnson City (see plat, Ex. 1). The officers did not enter that house and did not know by whom it was occupied, though the State's witness said it had been occupied by defendant's brother-in-law, but he did not know whether it was still so occupied or not. This witness did say this other house was owned by defendant; but, as stated, he did not know whether defendant was in possession or control of it, or in possession of the whiskey found there. Defendant himself did not testify as a witness.
Where intoxicating liquor is found on premises in the control and possession of the accused, there arises a presumption that such liquor is in his possession, and upon appeal from a conviction based on such presumptive possession, the burden is upon him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Squires v. State
...name of the officer to whom the warrants were delivered for execution.' Talley v. State, 208 Tenn. 275, 345 S.W.2d 867; Evans v. State, 209 Tenn. 453, 354 S.W.2d 263. Neither of the search warrants in this case was incorrectly endorsed by the issuing The remaining search warrant involved wa......
-
Turner v. State
...of the premises, and if liquor is found on the premises, it is, therefore, presumed to be in the owner's possession. Evans v. State, 209 Tenn. 453, 354 S.W.2d 263 (1962); Marie v. State, 204 Tenn. 197, 319 S.W.2d 86 (1958); Lampley v. State, 196 Tenn. 534, 268 S.W.2d 572 (1954). The presump......
-
State v. Stepherson
...on the warrant the hour, date, and name of the officer to whom it is delivered for execution, the search is illegal. Evans v. State, 354 S.W.2d 263, 264 (Tenn. 1962); Talley v. State, 345 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tenn. 1961). These two cases were decided under the former statute which required the ......