Nobles v. State, 39519
| Decision Date | 24 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39519,39519 |
| Citation | 77 So.2d 288,222 Miss. 827 |
| Parties | R. C. NOBLES v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
O. M. Oates, Bay Springs, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen. by Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
The appellant was tried and convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court of Jasper County on an affidavit charging him with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $150 and costs. On appeal to the circuit court, he was again tried and found guilty by a jury, and the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $500 and serve a term of ninety days in jail, suspending $200 of the fine and forty-five days of the jail sentence. He prosecutes this appeal, contending that the search warrant under which the evidence was obtained was void for the reason that it was made returnable to a past date, and that the competent evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The fact with reference to the search warrant are as follows: On May 9, 1953, Buford Bunch, a constable of Beat Three of Jasper County, found a Negro lying drunk on the ground about 100 yards from the home of the appellant. The constable arrested him and searched him and found a half pint of whiskey on him. The constable then went before the justice of the peace and made an affidavit for a search warrant to search the house, outhouses, and premises of the appellant for intoxicating liquor. The affidavit was made on May 9, 1953. According to the testimony of the constable, two search warrants were made out under the affidavit. The constable explained that he had no carbon paper, and, therefore, made two originals of the warrant, marking one of them 'copy'. Both warrants were dated May 9, 1953 and returnable on May 7, 1953, a past date. The constable, with his father, Rocky Bunch, went to the home of the appellant and gave him one of the warrants which was returnable on May 7. He made a search of the appellant's home, outhouses and premises under the search warrant. He later, himself, changed the copy of the warrant which he had retained so as to make it returnable May 15. The appellant made a motion to exclude any evidence under the search warrant for the reason that it was void. This motion was erroneously overruled by the trial court. In the case of Buckley v. State, 150 Miss. 808, 117 So. 115, this Court expressly held that a search warrant made returnable to a past date, an impossible date, was equivalent to making it returnable to a blank date and was void. This Court had theretofore held in the case of Powell v. State, 146 Miss. 677, 111 So. 738, that evidence procured by a search warrant with no return date thereon was inadmissible and that the search warrant was void. Notwithstanding the invalidity of the search warrant, the trial court permitted the introduction of evidence thereunder.
The testimony of the State consisted of the constable and his father. They went to the home of the appellant, and, after serving a copy of the search warrant on him, proceeded to search the house, outhouses, and premises. They found in the house a case of beer under the bed. They found on the outside of the house, in a smokehouse, in the yard, another case of beer. They found in the yard some broken and unbroken whiskey bottles. No whiskey was found in the house, or the yard, or in any of the outhouses, or on the premises of the appellant. The constable and his father testified that a path led from the back of the appellant's house to the fence which enclosed the appellant's premises, and that on the other side of the fence on land belonging to a Mr. Barefoot, there was another path. They said the path from the back of the house to the fence was 42 1/2 feet in length, and that they crossed the fence and followed a path over land belonging to a Mr. Barefoot for a distance of 197 feet where they found a jug containing some whiskey. They further testified that a path also led from the back of the house to the appellant's fence which separated the appellant's premises from the land of a Mr. Burnett, and that they crossed this fence, which was a distance of 42 1/2 feet from the house, and followed a path on Mr. Burnett's land for a distance of 238 feet, where they found a bottle, or another jug, of whiskey.
The defendant denied that the whiskey belonged to him, and denied that there was any path leading from his fence either on the Barefoot land or the Burnett land to the point where the whiskey was found. It was also testified by the appellant and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elkins v. United States
...Pre-Weeks: no holding. Pre-Wolf: Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 845, 24 A.L.R. 1377 (excludable). Post-Wolf: Nobles v. State, 222 Miss. 827, 77 So.2d 288 Pre-Weeks: State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489, 32 S.W. 1002 (admissible). Pre-Wolf: State v. Owens, 302 Mo. 348, 259 S.W. 100, 32 A.L.......
-
Newell v. State, 89-KA-0574
...was in constructive possession of the marijuana. Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608, 610 (Miss.1974); see also Nobles v. State, 222 Miss. 827, 832-33, 77 So.2d 288, 290 (1955); McMillian v. State, 218 Miss. 264, 267, 67 So.2d 290, 291 (1953). Generally, in the cases where this Court has found tha......
-
Interstate Life & Acc. Co. v. Matthews
... ... Co. of Tennessee v. Roland, 45 Ga.App. 467, 165 S.E. 293, a Georgia case; State ex rel. Tobin v. Independent Life Ins. Co. of America, 170 Tenn. 105, 92 S.W.2d 407, a Tennessee ... ...