State v. Cox
Citation | 259 S.W. 1041 |
Decision Date | 04 March 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 24159.,24159. |
Parties | STATE v. COX. |
Court | United 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.
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:
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- State v. Egan
- State v. Smith
- State v. Danforth
- State v. O'Brien