Peebles v. State, 38327

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Citation: 57 So.2d 263
• Docket Number: No. 38327,38327
• Parties: PEEBLES v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 25 February 1952

Page 263

57 So.2d 263 PEEBLES
v.
STATE. No. 38327. Supreme Court of Mississippi. Feb. 25, 1952.

E. L. Lamar, Calhoun City, for appellant.

J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HALL, Justice.

This case was affirmed without a written opinion on January 21, 1952. 56 So.2d 79. Appellant has filed a suggestion of error and has earnestly urged that there should be a written opinion in the case.

The facts are that two deputies from the sheriff's office went upon the premises of appellant, without a search warrant, and purchased from him a pint of intoxicating liquor for which he was paid the sum of $5. This evidence is not disputed and under a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor appellant was convicted. He made a motion to exclude the evidence and also requested a peremptory instruction on the ground that the evidence was obtained by virtue of an unlawful search and seizure, and this contention was urged upon us on the original presentation of the case and is now urged in the suggestion of error.

Appellant relies on numerous cases heretofore decided by us wherein officers went upon the premises of a defendant and there conducted a search without the aid of a search warrant, and then prosecuted the defendant for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. In such cases we have uniformly held that the evidence obtained by such a search was unlawfully obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and is inadmissible in evidence and that no conviction can stand upon such evidence.

Those cases, however, are not here in point. The officers in this case did not make a search of appellant's premises. They merely sought to purchase intoxicants from him and he made a sale to them. The evidence of that sale was not obtained by virtue of any search whatever, lawful or unlawful. The suggestion of error is therefore overruled.

Suggestion of error overruled.

ROBERDS, ALEXANDER, HOLMES and ARRINGTON, JJ., concur.