Mapp v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 1929 |
| Docket Number | 27534 |
| Citation | 152 Miss. 298,120 So. 170 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MAPP v. STATE. [*] |
Suggestion of Error Overruled Feb. 11, 1929.
APPEAL from circuit court of Leake county, HON. EARL RICHARDSON Special Judge.
Attley Mapp was convicted of attempt to manufacture whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Percy M. Lee, for appellant.
The informant in this case got his information the night before by a search of these premises, and that information which he obtained was simply that there was a barrel of beer at the point where he found it. The officers did not even know that the beer was still at the place where the informant had found it when they started on their search, and they did not know that any felony was being committed at the time they swooped down upon the appellant. Therefore, having no knowledge of the commission of a felony, we contend that they were without authority to go upon the private premises of appellant to arrest him, and take any evidence found as incidental to the arrest, and that therefore this search and seizure were unlawful, and being unlawful, the evidence obtained thereby was not admissible against the appellant in the trial of this case. Tucker v. State, 90 So. 845; Faulkner v. State, 98 So. 691; Hilton v. State, 101 So. 701; Orrick v. State, 105 So. 465; Gardner v. State, 105 So. 475; State v. Messer, 108 So. 145.
Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The testimony shows that Mr. Mundy, a private citizen, had found some beer in this particular location, that he had heard rumors that whisky was to be made there, that after finding the beer he saw that it was in such a state of fermentation as to be ready to run. Mr. Mundy thereupon informed the officers that this barrel of beer was in that particular location, that it was ready to run, and that he thought it would be run off that night. The testimony shows that Mr. Mundy was a man of good reputation that the officers considered the information credible and believed that there probably would be whisky manufactured there on that night. That acting upon this information they started to the place indicated, and when they got within a quarter of a mile of the location of the still could see the reflection of fire and that they went directly to it without having made any search whatsoever. Under these circumstances, certainly it was unnecessary for the officers to have a search warrant for the search of the premises of this defendant. They had information from a credible source to the effect that a felony had been committed, or at that time was being committed, or shortly thereafter would be committed, at this place, and with this information they went to the indicated place for the purpose of apprehending the felon and arresting him. Kennedy v. State, 139 Miss. 579, 104 So. 499; Pickett v. State, 139 Miss. 529, 104 So. 358; Love v. State, 142 Miss. 602, 107 So. 667; Wallace v. State (Miss.), 115 So. 778, are conclusive on this proposition.
Argued orally by Percy M. Lee, for appellant, and Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
Mapp, the appellant, was indicted by the grand jury and tried by the circuit court of Leake county on the charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. Upon the trial on this charge, he was convicted by the jury of an attempt to manufacture intoxicating liquor, and the court sentenced him to serve a term of one year in the state penitentiary. From that conviction and judgment of the court, he appeals to this court.
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. On the former appeal, the case was reversed and remanded, and is found reported as Mapp v. State (No. 26602), 148 Miss. 739, 114 So. 825.
The facts in this case are undisputed, and the essential facts on which this opinion is based are as follows: J. G. Clay, a constable of beat 4, Leake county, had information that a still would be operated and a run of whisky made on the night of December 23, 1926, near the line of Leake and Scott counties. Lyell, a constable of Scott county, gave the officer of Leake county this information, that liquor would be made on the Majors place which extended into Scott county. Lyell told the officer of Leake county that a Mr. Mundy had given him the information that a run of whisky was about to be made. Mundy was a private citizen, and the Leake county officer said he was a man of good reputation, whom he regarded as a credible witness. The two constables met Mundy, the informant, and Bennett, on the Majors place, about one-half mile from the place where they later found the still in operation. Mundy described the spot where he had located a barrel of mash ready to run, stating that there was a hole dug in the ground and a barrel sunk therein at a certain designated place. The three then left the Whitetown and Ludlow road, and a short distance from the road they saw the reflection of a light in the woods, and, as they went over the hill, they saw the blaze of the fire under the still. They secreted themselves and saw Will Johnson and Attley Mapp in the act of replenishing the fire under the still and otherwise conducting the operation of making whisky. Will Johnson walked out close to Clay; the two men having had an argument about who should get the next wood. Before Johnson left the still he was arrested, and, when Mapp undertook to run, he was also arrested. The still was fully assembled. The tank was full of beer, the coil and pipe were in full operation, and the beer was beginning to steam, though no manufactured whisky had yet run into the receptacle intended for it. This beer was buried near a little branch that ran east through there where there had been a horse stand. There were fifty gallons of beer in the barrel sunken in the ground when Mundy discovered it the night before the officers found this defendant attempting to make whisky and arrested him.
The witness Mundy said he had had experience and smelled the beer; that it was in a state of fermentation and ready to run. His opinion was that it could not have waited any longer.
The witnesses for the state were all agreed that the still was "fired up," and that the appellant and his companion were engaged in the act of manufacturing whisky though they had not proceeded far enough for any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millette v. State
... ... Toliver ... v. State, 98 So. 342; Agnello v. U.S. 70 L.Ed. 145 ... Probable ... cause for arrest for a felony without a warrant is a judicial ... question and is to be determined by the court in the absence ... of the jury ... Mapp v ... State, 114 So. 825; King v. State, 113 So. 173 ... The ... learned trial court committed reversible error in admitting ... testimony as to the statements made by Mrs. Millette when she ... was arrested over the objection of this appellant, for the ... reason that same were ... ...
-
Branning v. State
... ... The principles and holdings in the following cases, although the facts vary, as is always the case, preclude the admissibility of this testimony under the facts of this case. Orick v. State, 140 Miss. 184, 105 So. 465, 41 A.L.R. 1129; Mapp v. State, 148 Miss. 739, 114 So. 825, (Retrial 152 Miss. 298, 120 So. 170); Smith v. State, 160 Miss. 56, 133 So. 240; Castillow v. State, 160 Miss. 473, 135 So. 205; Laster v. Chaney, 180 Miss. 110, 177 So. 524; McGowan v. State, 184 Miss. 96, 185 So. 836; Craft v. State, 202 Miss. 43, 30 So.2d ... ...
-
May v. State, 44433
...396 (1953); Millette v. State, 167 Miss. 172, 148 So.2d 788 (1933); Bird v. State, 154 Miss. 493, 122 So. 539 (1929); Mapp v. State, 152 Miss. 298, 120 So. 170 (1929); Thompson v. State, 153 Miss. 593, 121 So. 275 (1929); Pickett v. State, 139 Miss. 529, 104 So. 358 (1925); 4 Am.Jur. Arrest......
- Southern Mining & Mineral Corporation v. Poythress