Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1952 |
| Parties | HICKS v. STATE. 30 Beeler 351, 194 Tenn. 351, 250 S.W.2d 559 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
R. R. Haggard, Waynesboro, for plaintiff in error.
Knox Bigham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing whiskey. Code Section 11216. It was 'white corn' whiskey.
The whiskey was found in the home of Hicks as a result of a search made by law officers under the authority of a search warrant. One assignment of error is that this search warrant is void for insufficient description of the premises to be searched, and for lack of averments sufficient in law to justify the issuance of the warrant.
As we understood it, counsel for plaintiff in error conceded in oral argument here that the search warrant is valid. However that may be, we do not think this assignment of error is well taken. The property to be searched is described in the search warrant as being the home of Russell Hicks in the First District of Wayne County bounded on the north by woodland, east by vacant lot or cleared land, south by vacant lot and west by vacant lot and dim road. It is apparent that this location is in a rural area. In Webb v. State, 173 Tenn. 518, 121 S.W.2d 550, it was observed that homes in rural communities are commonly known by the name of the owners rather than by any boundary description. As stated in the brief of the Attorney General, the recitation that the house to be searched is the home of Russell Hicks in the First District of Wayne County would lead the officers with certainty to the house in question. The description could hardly have been improved, other than to name the owners of the vacant lots on the various sides of this house.
With reference to the insistence that the statements in the affidavit of the search warrant are not legally sufficient to authorize the issuance of the warrant, attention is called to the fact that the affidavit states that affiant's informant said that he, the informant, had within the last ten days seen people coming from this house in an intoxicated condition and had seen persons taking intoxicating liquors to the premises, and that the informant said that he 'knows personally that liquors are being kept on premises' of Hicks. These statements are sufficient to justify the issuance of the search warrant. Jackson v. State, 153 Tenn. 431, 438, 284 S.W. 356.
It is conceded that the finding of this liquor in the home of Russell Hicks would ordinarily create a presumption that the liquor belonged to him. It is said, however, that inasmuch as he was not at home, and that there was in the home some other man along with the wife of Hicks that, therefore, this presumption is destroyed. As a part of this assignment it is also said that proof shows that Hicks had not been in his home for a week.
It is a mistake to say that the proof shows Hicks not to have been at home for a week prior to the search. A deputy sheriff testified that he had not seen Hicks there for about a week. That statement is by no means equivalent to a statement that he had not been at home for a week.
One bottle of this whiskey was found in the pocket of a coat hanging in the bed room. It is argued that it could as well be presumed that this liquor belonged to the man who was in the house at the time as that it belonged to the defendant. Whatever force, per se, that argument might otherwise have, it is rendered totally without value by reason of the fact that another jar of whiskey was found in that room 'in a little old cabinet or place behind some books'. We see nothing in the case which takes it out of the rule that there is a presumption that the liquor belonged to the man of the house.
Code Section 11216 provides that the whiskey which it is unlawful to possess is whiskey which was received since March 1, 1917. There is no express proof as to when Hicks received this particular liquor. It is, therefore, insisted that the evidence is not sufficient to justify conviction,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vann
...the crime and the place to be searched, and that the facts were sufficiently recent to establish probable cause See Hicks v. State, 194 Tenn. 351, 250 S.W.2d 559 (1952); Waggener v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 258, 191 S.W.2d 551 (Tenn.1946); State v. McCormick, 584 S.W.2d 821 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979)......
-
State v. Thomas
...for the search warrant was the full 10 days, we do not think that as inordinately long under these circumstances. Hicks v. State, 194 Tenn. 351, 250 S.W.2d 559 (1952). This meets the test set out in State v. Baker, 625 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981), wherein it was held that "a specific da......
-
The STATE of New Jersey in the Interest of R.B.C., a juvenile defendant
...as "recently" (Waggener v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 258, 191 S.W.2d 551 (Sup.Ct.1946)); "within" (a named period) (Hicks v. State, 194 Tenn. 351, 250 S.W.2d 559 (Sup.Ct.1952)), "during" (a named period) (Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964), reh. den. 37......
-
State v. Bush
...after the informant observed the defendant in possession of illegal liquor. This issue is overruled on authority of Hicks v. State, 194 Tenn. 351, 250 S.W.2d 559 (1951). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in permitting a State witness whose ......