Landers v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1928 |
| Citation | 11 S.W.2d 868,157 Tenn. 648 |
| Parties | LANDERS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Greene County; H. T. Campbell, Judge.
John Landers and others were convicted of burglary, and they bring error. Affirmed.
Dana Harmon, of Greeneville, for plaintiffs in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiffs in error, referred to herein as the defendants were convicted of burglarizing the storehouse of S. S. Ricker on the night of August 4, 1927.
Thannie Holt, an accomplice, was introduced as a witness for the state, and testified that he was with the defendants on the night in question when they broke into the store and took therefrom several hundred dollars worth of goods.
Since the defendants did not testify, and offered no evidence in their behalf, it is only necessary to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to corroborate Holt.
We are of the opinion that the jury were well warranted in finding that there was such evidence. The record shows that late in the afternoon of the day the burglary was committed Holt and the defendants were assembled at the home of Metcalf; that the autombile tracks discovered the next morning leading to and from the store were similar to those made by the automobiles of Landers and Metcalf; that these parties were all found together on the second morning following the burglary; that a lot of the stolen goods were found in a hollow stump near the homes of Landers and Tarlton; that other of these goods were found on Cold Spring Mountain where Metcalf and Landers were encamped; the flight of Landers on two occasions, and other circumstances not necessary to detail herein.
It is earnestly insisted by the defendants that the trial court committed prejudical error in admitting testimony that a portion of these goods were found in the homes of Tarlton and Landers by officers acting under an illegal search warrant notwithstanding this evidence was subsequently withdrawn and the jury instructed not to consider it.
Concededly these search warrants were invalid, and, even though Tarlton consented for the officers to search his premises, under the circumstances of this case, the search was illegal. Hampton v. State, 148 Tenn. 155, 252 S.W. 1007.
In such cases the trial court should follow the practice outlined in Tenpenny v. State, 151 Tenn. 669, 270 S.W. 989, and Goodwin v. State, 148 Tenn. 682, 257 S.W. 79.
While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...and minimum, at two years in the penitentiary.' This same construction was put on our indeterminate sentence statute in Landers v. State, 157 Tenn. 648, 11 S.W.2d 868. See also in this regard the reasoning of this Court in Corlew v. State, 181 Tenn. 220, 180 S.W.2d 900. Other authorities co......