State v. Briggs

Citation281 S.W. 107
Decision Date02 March 1926
Docket NumberNo. 4018.,4018.
PartiesSTATE v. BRIGGS
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Ida Briggs was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. Reversed, and remanded for new trial.

J. S. Gossom and F. A. Gossom, both of Caruthersville, for appellant.

Sam J. Corbett, of Caruthersville, for the State.

BAILEY, J.

Defendant was found guilty on a charge of possessing intoxicating liquor ; the jury being unable to agree as to her punishment, the trial court fixed the punishment at a fine of $300, and defendant appeals.

Defendant first assigns as error that her demurrer to the evidence offered at the close of the state's case and again at the close of the whole case should have been sustained. The witnesses for the state were the officers who, in December, 1924, made a search of the premises occupied by defendant. The house where defendant lived was in the city of Caruthersville between what is called the "sea wall" and the river. It is a district containing rental houses mostly occupied by negroes. The particular house in which defendant lived and which was searched by the officers contained four rooms, three of them occupied by negro tenants. The officers found the whisky in the unoccupied and practically unfurnished room at the rear of the house next the river. Officer Johnson, who made the search, testified that the liquor which he found in this room consisted of one gallon of "white mule" whisky. Defendant's guilt depends upon the question of whether or not she had the whole house rented or simply occupied one of the rooms as a tenant. There was evidence pro and con as to whether she was at the house on the night of the search. As tending to connect defendant with proprietorship over the whole house, Officer Johnson testified he did not know which room Ida Briggs (the defendant) occupied, but "she told me she had the whole entire house rented." On redirect examination, this witness was asked:

"Q. And you say Ida told you she had possession and control of the whole building? A. I asked her if she was paying the rent on it and she said, `Yes;' and that's how come me to go back and arrest her.

"Q. What was it you started to say about arresting another nigger woman? A. I arrested a small nigger woman and started to bring her to town.

"Q. Did Ida say anything to prevent you from bringing her? Did Ida say anything that prevented you from bringing the other nigger woman? A. Well, she said she was renting— this little nigger just paid her rent and roomed there, just stayed there.

"Q. That's what Ida told you? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And that's why you didn't bring the other woman to town? A. Yes, sir."

The officers all testified that at the time the search was made there were one or two women and possibly a man or two in the house, but they were each of the opinion Ida Briggs was not there that night.

Defendant had as a witness one J. W. Covington, who occupied the role of collector of the rents for the owner of the building in question. He testified that he had been collecting the rent on this house for three years. He was asked:

"Q. To whom did you have that building rented at that time? A. Clemmie Jackson.

"Q. Was she living there at the time? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Did she rent the entire building from Mr. Moore? A. Yes, sir, she paid $8 a side for the building.

"Q. Do you know if this defendant, Ida Briggs, was renting from—Ida Briggs from Clemmie Jackson? A. I saw Ida Briggs there, but for me knowing the transaction she and Clemmie made, I don't know.

"Q. I will ask you if Ida Briggs had that building rented? A. No, sir; she didn't have it rented; she hadn't been very long come to town before the raid, must have been out in the country picking cotton, somewhere out about Steele.

"Q. You don't know whether she had a room rented there or not? A. No, sir.

"Q. Did Clemmie Jackson, the nigger woman that had property rented from Mr. Moors through you, rent rooms to nigger men and women? A. Yes, sir; she made the boat every night when it came in. * * *

"Q. Was Clemmie Jackson occupying this building at the time the search was made? A. Yes, sir; she hadn't been long bought a new `graphonola' and some new furniture from this furniture company on Ward avenue, that opened up next to Cunningham's."

He also testified that he never saw Clemmie Jackson any more after the night of the search; that he "went down Monday morning to collect the rent and the house was all locked up and curtains gone and some of the things." He also stated that Ida Briggs had never paid him any rent, and that some of Clemmie Jackson's clothes were still in the house.

Rosie Warr, a witness for defendant, testified she had a room rented in this house and was present the night of the search; that she paid her rent to Clemmie Jackson ; that the room in which the whisky was found was directly back of her room, but that the door was always closed, and she had never tried to get in. She was asked:

"Q. How long had Clemmie been gone when the officers came to make the search? A. Hadn't been gone but a few minutes.

"Q. And she left when the cans rattled? A. Yes, sir; and she said she would be back in a few minutes and she hasn't got back yet."

Defendant, Ida Briggs, denied any knowledge of the whisky. She testified that she paid rent to Clemmie Jackson and occupied only one room in the house; that she had been there only two weeks before the arrest was made.

In rebuttal, Officer Johnson, for the state, testified without objection that Rosie Warr (defendant's witness) told him she was renting from Ida Briggs, the defendant.

From the foregoing resume of the evidence it is apparent there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether defendant or the "long time gone" Clemmie Jackson was the tenant in charge of the dwelling. It was certainly for the jury to say whether they believed Officer Johnson or defendant and her two witnesses. They chose to believe Johnson, and we cannot say the jury was wrong. If defendant, Ida Briggs, did have charge of the whole house, she then became responsible for the liquor in the vacant room, absent some explanation. Any other rule would permit infringements of the law with absolute impunity. In the case of State v. Blocker, 274 S. W. 1097, this court held that, in a prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, an instruction was properly refused that required the jury to find the proprietor of a cafe in which liquor was found had actual possession thereof or had knowledge that said liquor was being kept in his place of business. The proprietor, being in possession of the building, was held to be prima facie guilty of knowledge of the presence of the liquor. So in the case at bar, the evidence was prima fade sufficient to charge defendant with guilty knowledge and it was for the jury to determine whether or not the prima fade case was overcome. While the evidence was not strong, we believe it sufficient to sustain the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT