Robertson v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 1949
• Citation: 221 S.W.2d 520,188 Tenn. 471
• Parties: ROBERTSON v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

221 S.W.2d 520

188 Tenn. 471

ROBERTSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 10, 1949

Error to Criminal Court, Hardeman County; Mark A. Walker, Judge.

Bessie Robertson was convicted of possessing beer intended for unlawful sale, and she appeals in error.

Affirmed.

Boyette Denton, Bolivar, for plaintiff in error.

J Malcolm Shull, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ALBERT WILLIAMS, Special Justice.

Bessie Robertson was indicted along with her son, Rebel, for having in her possession beer intended for unlawful sale. She alone was convicted. Her punishment was fixed at a fine of $250 and a suspended jail sentence of thirty days. The case is here by appeal in error supported by assignments which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of the search by which evidence was obtained.

There is ample evidence that plaintiff in error possessed beer and for the purpose of sale. It consisted of twenty-seven cases less a few bottles and was found in a storehouse in which the plaintiff in error occupied rooms as a dwelling place. She testified that she bought it to give to her son in event he should obtain a license for which he had applied and intended to give it back to the agent from whom she bought it if her son was not able to procure the license. Several bottles were missing, however, and officers who made a search of the premises testified that they found glasses which smelled of beer and that two of the cases of beer were on ice. The story of plaintiff in error that she was merely holding the beer against the time when her son might be authorized to sell it did not explain why it had to be immediately refrigerated. It appears that another son of plaintiff in error, in association with a man named Sweat, had operated a beer business at this place until his permit had been revoked some months before.

It is insisted by plaintiff in error that the search warrant under which the officers obtained evidence of her possession of beer was invalid, first, because it inadequately described the place to be searched and the property to be searched for and did not name the persons who were afterwards arrested second, that it was issued upon an affidavit justifying only the search for 'intoxicating liquor' and not beer third, that statutory grounds for the issuance of the search warrant did not exist, fourth, that it authorized the search of the premises of 'Sweat and Robertson' and not the room occupied by plaintiff in error; fifth, that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based did not accurately describe the location of the premises to be searched; and sixth, that the grounds set forth in the affidavit applying for the search warrant were those of a printed form, none of which was checked or deleted so that the affidavit would show which one was relied on.

None of the objections is sound. It was not necessary that the affidavit contain the names of the particular persons who happened to be in possession of the premises when the search was made. Seals v. State, 157 Tenn. 538, 11 S.W.2d 879. The place to be searched was described both by naming the owners of the adjacent property and giving the names of those who had recently owned the property. This was enough...