Lee v. City of Oxford
| Decision Date | 07 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23909 |
| Citation | 134 Miss. 647,99 So. 509 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEE v. CITY OF OXFORD |
APPEAL from circuit court of Lafayette county, HON. THOS. E. PEGRAM Judge.
Tommie Lee was convicted for unlawful cohabitation, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
W. P Shinault, for appellant.
Tommie Lee, colored, was convicted of unlawful cohabitation with Beulah Lucas. The marshal and deputy sheriff in April and September, 1923, were making general raids over the city, without warrants for arrests, and without warrants for search of premises or homes, and visited the home of Beulah Lucas in the city, where they went upon her premises to her home, in the night time, without invitation to do so, knocked upon her door and ordered it open, which being done, they found the appellant and Beulah Lucas in the latter's home, in such manner and way as to indicate commission of the offense charged.
In an offense, which in its nature was joint between Beulah Lucas and the appellant, if at all, testimony if incompetent as to her as having been gathered without warrant in law, would surely be likewise incompetent as to him. Otherwise, the paradox appears of appellant being in a home where he was welcome, and officers invade without warrant that home, and upon such testimony so obtained convict him of crime with her, although she is released upon the evidence so unlawfully obtained.
Surely the guest is to have the benefit of the law along with the home owner when charged with a clandestine joint offense with the owner. It is submitted, the motion to exclude this testimony, which was identical in the two cases, should have been sustained and the defendants discharged. On the whole record, it is submitted this cause should be reversed and this appellant discharged.
L. C. Andrews, for appellee.
All the officers did in this case was to enter the yard and the front porch of the residence in which Beulah Lucas was living and knock at the door. They did not try to force an entrance. The door was opened by Tommie Lee without any protest, and while it was opened the officers saw Beulah in bed and Tommie sitting on the side of the bed in his night clothes. However, this objection could not avail the appellant for it was not his home that was invaded. There is ample evidence to sustain the conviction. They had some time prior to their arrest entered pleas of guilty to the same charges, and the circumstances and facts testified to, abundantly show the relationship alleged. As to what constitutes an unlawful search, see State of South Carolina v. R. L. Quinn, et al., 3 A. L. R. 1500. Criminal intercourse once shown is presumed to continue if the parties be living under the same roof. Carrotti v. State, 42 Miss. 334.
Argued orally by L. C. Andrews, for appellee.
Tommie Lee was indicted, tried, and convicted for unlawful cohabitation in violation of an ordinance of the city of Oxford, and was convicted in the city court and appealed to the circuit court of Lafayette county, and was again tried and convicted, from which judgment he appeals.
It appears from the evidence that the city marshal and a constable, about the 8th day of September, 1923, made a search through the municipality for violations of the law, and went to the house of one Beulah Lucas without a search warrant and knocked upon the door, and Tommie Lee, who was in the house, demanded to know who it was, and was told to open the door, which he did. At the time he was dressed in his night clothes and Beulah Lucas was in bed. Lee sat upon the bed and dressed in the presence of the officers, who seemed not to have entered the house. It was shown that Beulah Lucas occupied a room which she rented from one Joe Watkins, who also lived in the same building. The proof further shows that in March or April preceding this arrest the officers found Lee and Beulah Lucas in the bed together, and had them arrested, and they pleaded guilty of unlawful cohabitation. Other proof introduced was to the effect that Lee had been seen at the house of Beulah Lucas on several occasions sitting by the fire or on the porch, and that he was seen a number of times in company with her passing through the city. It was proven that the appellant, Lee, lived with his father about a mile from the city of Oxford.
The defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence on the ground that it was obtained by an unlawful search, and that the evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance v. State
...Messer v. State, 107 So. 384; Ashley v. State, 150 Miss. 547, 117 So. 511; Polk v. State, 167 Miss. 506, 142 So. 480; Lee v. Oxford, 134 Miss. 647, 99 So. 509; Barton v. State, 165 Miss. 355, 143 So. Patterson v. State, 176 So. 603; Maddox v. State, 173 Miss. 799, 163 So. 449; Pierson v. Pe......
-
Fondren v. State
...(1930); Pickett v. State, 155 Miss. 386, 124 So. 364 (1929); Roberts v. State, 153 Miss. 622, 121 So. 279 (1929); Lee v. City of Oxford, 134 Miss. 647, 99 So. 509 (1924). This seems to be the universal rule. See 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 657(9) ...
-
Cofer v. State
... ... on Search and Seizure, chapter 62, sec. 12, and the cases ... cited in notes 80-85; Ashley v. State, 150 Miss ... 547, 117 So. 511; Lee v. City of Oxford, 134 Miss ... 647, 99 So. 509; Pringle v. State, 108 Miss. 802, 67 ... So. 455; Roberts v. State, 153 Miss. 622, 121 So ... 279; Ross ... ...
-
Canning v. State, 45479
...officers. McBride v. State, 221 Miss. 508, 73 So.2d 154 (1954); Rose v. State, 222 Miss. 699, 76 So.2d 835 (1955); Lee v. City of Oxford, 134 Miss. 647, 99 So. 509 (1924); Ross v. State, 140 Miss. 367, 105 So. 846 (1925); Pickett v. State, 155 Miss. 386, 124 So. 364 (1929); McLemore v. Stat......