Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 15 February 1936 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
W. H. Crowell, of Shelbyville, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was found guilty under a presentment charging him with (1) the unlawful receipt of intoxicating liquors; (2) the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors; and (3) the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors. There was a general verdict and a fine of $100 assessed by the jury. No jail sentence was added by the court, and we take it the verdict and judgment thereupon may be referred to the possession count of the presentment.
The defendant, driving along the highway from a point in Bedford county toward Murfreesboro, was pursued by Rutherford county officers and finally overtaken. Defendant was proceeding quietly along the highway in his automobile, accompanied by his wife and two other women, violating no road law, when the officers sought to stop him. The officers justified their action upon information received by one of them that defendant was bringing whisky into Murfreesboro on the afternoon of his arrest.
A witness named Lovvorn, a Rutherford county constable, testified he received the information above stated, and thereupon called upon the sheriff and one of his deputies to go out with him (Lovvorn) to try and catch defendant. Lovvorn said he was informed defendant intended to bring in more than one gallon of whisky. No search warrant was procured. The three officers drove out on the Shelbyville road and met defendant coming in toward Murfreesboro. The officers turned their car around and said that they pursued defendant's car, and, coming up with defendant's car, they ordered defendant to stop. Defendant did not heed them. The officers continued the pursuit and stopped defendant in about two and one-half miles by shooting down the tire on one of the rear wheels of his car. The officers testified they found whisky and glass on the floor of the car and testified to other circumstances indicating that defendant had been transporting liquor and had broken the containers during the chase.
Lovvorn was asked where he procured the information that defendant intended to bring whisky into Murfreesboro on the afternoon he was arrested. The trial judge, upon exception of the District Attorney General, ruled that Lovvorn was not required to answer this question, and defendant's counsel duly excepted.
The question thus raised has been presented to the court several times within the last few months. In previous cases, we have not found it necessary to make a direct ruling thereupon.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dewson, Cr. 3329
...be disclosed to test the officers' justification in making the arrest. Hill v. State, 151 Miss. 518, 118 So. 539, 540; Smith v. State, 169 Tenn. 633, 90 S.W.2d 523, 524. The federal courts also recognize a distinction between the cases where the informer is that and nothing more, in which c......
-
People v. Alaniz
...a case of probable cause has been established, and perhaps as well to restrict informers to a sincerity of purpose.' In Smith v. State, 169 Tenn. 633, 90 S.W.2d 523, 524, the court 'So we think, when an officer seeks to justify an arrest upon 'a charge made upon reasonable cause,' the offic......
-
People v. Durr
...390 (1932); United States v. Blich, 45 F.2d 627 (D.C.Wyo. 1930); United States v. Keown, 19 F.Supp. 639 (W.D.Ky. 1937); Smith v. State, 169 Tenn. 633, 90 S.W.2d 523. KLINGBIEL, C. J., and HERSHEY, J., concur in this dissenting ...
-
State v. Burnett
...effect is Ford v. City of Jackson, 153 Miss. 616, 121 So. 278 (Sup.Ct.1929). Tennessee had held the same way in Smith v. State, 169 Tenn. 633, 90 S.W.2d 523 (Sup.Ct.1936), but that case was disapproved in Simmons v. State, 198 Tenn. 587, 281 S.W.2d 487 (Sup.Ct.1955), which commits the matte......