State v. McAnnally
| Decision Date | 04 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 24832.,24832. |
| Citation | 259 S.W. 1042 |
| Parties | STATE v. McANNALLY |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; H. C. Riley, Judge.
Francis McAnnally was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersvilie, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Allen May, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a prosecution by information charging the appellant with unlawfully having in his possession one-half gallon of whisky, contrary to the provisions of Rev. St. 1919, § 6588, Laws 1921, p. 414. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000, and to imprisonment in the county jail for 12 months.
Before the trial, the defendant filed a motion "to suppress the evidence, and, if a search warrant was issued, to quash the same and suppress and exclude any and all evidence obtained by the sheriff," etc.
It is unnecessary to set out the evidence on the hearing of this motion. The sheriff and a constable, In trying to locate a still, went to the defendant's residence about midnight. The sheriff called the defendant several times, but before he could dress and come downstairs, to let the officer in, the constable broke in the rear door. The officers found and seized some whisky in the defendant's dwelling house. They did not have a search warrant. The motion was overruled. At the trial, over the objections and exceptions of the defendant, the sheriff testified to finding the whisky in the defendant's residence, and it was admitted in evidence. This was all the evidence.
The search and seizure of the liquor in the defendant's dwelling, without a search warrant, were in violation of section 11 of article 2 of our Constitution, invoked by the appellant, as recently held by our court in banc in State v. Owens, 259 S. W. 100. The motion to suppress and the objections to the evidence should have been sustained. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the defendant discharged.
The foregoing opinion of HIGBEE, C., is hereby adopted as the opinion of the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hepperman
... ... evidence before the trial was commenced, and failing and ... refusing to conduct an inquiry into the merits of said motion ... to suppress evidence before ruling on the same. State v ... Custer, 80 S.W.2d 176; State v. Hyde, 136 S.W ... 316; State v. McAnnally, 259 S.W. 1042; State v ... Jackson, 83 S.W.2d 87. (10) The court erred in admitting ... evidence State's Exhibits C and D and testimony in ... relation thereto because said exhibits were obtained from the ... home of defendant after her arrest, during her absence from ... said home, and ... ...
- State v. Wilkerson
-
State v. Freyer
... ... The term "Home" in the ... Missouri Constitution is more comprehensive than ... "House" in the Federal Constitution. It includes ... the curtilage -- the yard, etc. 1 Bouvier's Law ... Dictionary, p. 741; McClurg v. Brenton, 123 Iowa ... 368, 98 N.W. 881; State v. McAnnally, 259 S.W. 1042; ... State v. Owen, 259 S.W. 100; State v. Lock, ... 259 S.W. 100. (3) If the sheriff was directing the search it ... was competent for the defendant to show this fact together ... with all other facts attending the entry of the ... defendant's home with bloodhounds and it ... ...
- State v. Bauer