State v. Cox

Citation259 S.W. 1041
Decision Date04 March 1924
Docket NumberNo. 24159.,24159.
PartiesSTATE v. COX.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barry County; Charles L. Denson, Judge.

Landon Cox was convicted of violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals. Cause transferred to Court of Appeals.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Geo. W. Crowder, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVID E. BLAIR, P. J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of the prohibition law in Barry county. Appeal was granted to this court upon the ground that constitutional questions are involved.

The contention of appellant is that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence certain intoxicating liquors found in his dwelling house by means of an alleged illegal search warrant. No motion to suppress the evidence was filed in advance of the trial. The objection to such evidence was made for the first time after the jury was sworn and while the trial was in progress. Courts will not stop the trial to investigate the source of evidence, if the evidence itself, as offered, is relevant, material, and competent. State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. loc. cit. 498, 32 S. W. 1002; State v. Sharpless, 212 Mo. loc. cit, 197, 111 S. W. 69. In the case of State v. Alfred Owens (No. 24186) 259 S. W, 100, decided by the court en banc February. 11, 1924, it was said:

"When evidence is offered and objection that it was obtained by illegal means is then made for the first time, the court will determine only whether the evidence is relevant and competent. It will not pause to determine the collateral question as to how the evidence was obtained."

It is the general rule that constitutional questions must be raised at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings or they will be regarded as waived. Speer v. Railroad, 264 Mo. loc. cit. 267, 174 S. W. 381; State v. Gamma, 215 Mo. loc. cit. 103, 114 S. W. 619.

Even if the evidence was obtained by illegal search and seizure, in violation of section 11, art. 2, of our Constitution, and if its use against defendant, when thus obtained, violated section 23, art. 2, as defendant contends, the objection on such ground, made during the course of the trial, came too late for consideration, even in that court, and therefore clearly came too late to be considered by this court upon appeal. The overruling of objections on such grounds, at that stage of the trial, did not raise a constitutional question so as to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon this court.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Egan
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 17 Noviembre 1954
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 1958
  • State v. Danforth
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 29 Marzo 1983
  • State v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Octubre 1952
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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