State v. Hyde
| Citation | 297 Mo. 213,248 S.W. 920 |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 23761.,23761. |
| Parties | STATE v. HYDE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.
D. H. Hyde was convicted of having in possession a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
G. Purd Hays, of Ozark, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Ellison A. Poulton, of Mansfield, of counsel), for the State.
The first count of the information charges that the defendant, on November 5, 1921, had in his possession one still, doubler, worm, worm tub, mash tub, and fermenting tub, used and fit for use in the manfacture of intoxicating liquor, the possession of said still, doubler, worm, worm tub, mash tub, and fermenting tub being then and there unlawful and prohibited, etc., following the language of section 6588, a. S., as amended (Laws 1921, pp. 413, 414, § 1). The second count charges the defendant with selling intoxicating liquors contrary to the form of the statute, etc. The court submitted the case to the jury on the first count, but directed a finding of rot guilty on the second. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty on the first count, assessing his punishment at a fine of $250, and finding the defendant not guilty on the second count.
On the day prior to the filing of the information, the prosecuting attorney filed an affidavit with the clerk of the circuit court, charging, in substance, that in the residence of Houston Hyde (the defendant) in Webster county, intoxicating liquors are being manufactured, sold, and kept, contrary to the statute, and that in said building "is kept, used, still, doubler, worm, worm tub, mash tub, fermenting tub, vessel and fixtures used and fit for use in the manufacturing and producing intoxicating liquors," and that said dwelling is a public resort and a place in which intoxicating liquors are being manufactured, contrary to said statutes. A search warrant was issued by the clerk to the sheriff, who proceeded with his deputies to the defendant's private residence. The sheriff read the warrant to the defendant, who invited them into his dwelling, where he And his family lived, and told them to look until they were satisfied. The sheriff and his deputies found three ordinary lard cans, of 6, 10, and 20 gallons capacity, re. spectively, each full of sour corn mash in a state of fermentation. They also found three fruit jars containing corn whisky, and a section of ¾-inch iron pipe, 6 or 7 feet long, concealed between the mattresses of a bed. One end of this pipe had a rag on it which smelled like a whisky bottle. They also found 25 pounds of sugar and a sack of corn chop. The defendant said the corn mash was for his hogs, and the sheriff gave it to them, but took the lard cans and fruit jars containing the whisky, which were exhibited to the jury at the trial. This was the substance of the evidence for the state on the motion to quash the search warrant and at the trial.
Before the trial the defendant filed a motion to quash the search warrant, and to suppress and exclude any and all evidence obtained by the sheriff under the warrant, for the reason that the mash tubs, Mash; still, and intoxicating liquor, if any, were unlawfully seized by said officers at and in defendant's private dwelling house. The court overruled the motion. At the trial, the defendant renewed his objections to any testimony by the sheriff or his deputies as to what they saw, learned, or found while executing the search warrant and to the offering in evidence of the lard cans, fruit jars, pipe, and whisky seized by the sheriff, which objections were overruled. At the close of the case for the state, and again at the close of all the testimony, the defendant demurred to the evidence, and prayed the court to direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty. This was refused.
1. Appellant contends that the search of his private dwelling was violative of the constitutional guaranties against unreasonable search and seizure. Our Bill of Rights provides:
"That the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may be; nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing." Section 11, art. 2, Constitution of Missouri.
Our state and federal Constitutions contain guaranties against unreasonable searches and seizures. The fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not a limitation upon the power of the state, but operates solely on the federal government. 35 Cyc. 1269. The state has original plenary power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, keeping, and storing or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hefflin
...Buxton, 22 S.W.2d 635. (7) One cannot be convicted of a crime on evidence which creates merely suspicion of crime, however strong. State v. Hyde, 248 S.W. 920; State Nagle, 32 S.W.2d 596; State v. Pippin, 36 S.W.2d 914; State v. Carter, 36 S.W.2d 917; State v. Spires, 65 S.W.2d 1057. (8) Th......
-
People v. Castree
...v. Marxhensen, 204 Mich. 559, 171 N. W. 557, 3 A. L. R. 1505;Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 South. 845,24 A. L. R. 1377;State v. Hyde (Mo. Sup.) 248 S. W. 920;State v. District Court, 59 Mont. 600, 198 Pac. 362;Gore v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 218 Pac. 545;Hughes v. State, 145 Tenn. 544, 2......
-
State v. Williams
...such. State v. Pope, 210 Mo. App. 558, 243 S. W. 253. The facts in this case are much stronger than those in the case of State v. Hyde, 297 Mo. 213, 248 S. W. 920. cited by the defendant. In that case it was held that ordinary lard cans did not constitute mash tubs within the meaning of the......
-
The State v. Loftis
...the officers without any warrant for their arrest, or any search warrant to search this automobile. State v. De Clue, 267 S.W. 45; State v. Hyde, 297 Mo. 213; State v. Tunnell, 259 S.W. 45; State Hyde, 297 Mo. 213; State v. Tunnell, 259 S.W. 128; State v. Owens, 259 S.W. 100; State v. Lock,......