State v. Huckabe
| Decision Date | 06 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3806.) |
| Citation | 269 S.W. 691 |
| Parties | STATE v. HUCKABE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.
Ross Huckabe was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W. G. Bray, of Senath, for appellant.
Defendant was convicted upon a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and appealed.
A search warrant was issued, and the officers searched the residence and store of defendant. They found a gallon jug of intoxicating liquor in a bedroom of defendant's residence, five pint bottles under the floor on the sill, and part of a pint under the porch. All the evidence for, the state was the evidence of the officers who found the liquor while executing the search warrant. Counsel for defendant, before trial, filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the testimony of the officers who served it. This was overruled.
On the trial the defendant contended that he knew nothing of the liquor being on his premises and offered testimony tending to show that it was placed there by another party without his knowledge or consent. That, issue was submitted to the jury by proper instruction, and their finding against defendant binds us.
The information was correct in form, and instructions fairly submitted the issue of fact to the jury, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, so the only question here is whether the search warrant was legal so that it was competent for the officers who served it to testify to what they found while executing the warrant. The affidavit on which the search warrant was based was lost and could not be produced at the hearing on the motion to suppress, but the justice of the peace who issued the search warrant testified that the affidavit on which it was based was on a regular blank, and contained a statement that intoxicating liquor was stored in the buildings that the warrant directed to be searched. This would seem to be sufficient as to the contents of the affidavit. The affidavit was made by one L. A. Smithmier, who was described in the search warrant as a prohibition officer. He was shown to be a deputy sheriff and deputy constable. The present search warrant statute as it relates to intoxicating liquors, Acts of 1923, p. 244, § 25, provides that an application for a search warrant may be made by the Attorney General of the state or by a prosecuting attorney or any prohibition enforcement officer. The same act, on page 246, § 25, provides as follows:
* * * It is hereby * * * made the duty of sheriffs and constables and their deputies within their respective counties * * * to diligently suppress any violation of this act or of article 7, chapter 52, R. S. 1919, or acts amendatory thereof, and to this end such officers are hereby authorized and directed to arrest, with or without a warrant, any person or persons found violating any of such provisions. * * *"
This statute, by its express terms, makes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
... ... Nichols v. Railroad Co., 250 S.W. 627; Henderson ... v. Railroad Co., 248 S.W. 987; State ex rel. Hines ... v. Bland, 237 S.W. 1018; Holtcamp v. Railroad ... Co., 234 S.W. 1054; Evans v. Railroad Co., 233 ... S.W. 397; Morrow v. Hines, ... ...
- State v. Brugioni
-
The State v. Loftis
...State v. Rowland, 174 Mo. 373; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Thogmartin, 270 S.W. 313; State v. Lipps, 267 S.W. 942; State v. Huckabe, 269 S.W. 691; v. Ware, 274 S.W. 853. (2) At the close of plaintiff's testimony defendant filed a demurrer to the evidence. No demurrer was filed ......
-
State v. Nerini
...116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellmen, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (3) T......