State v. Price
| Decision Date | 01 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3706.,3706. |
| Parties | STATE v. PRICE et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglass County; Fred Stewart, Judge.
Luther Price and R. V. Hatfield were convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and they appeal. Affirmed.
J. S. Clarke, of Ava, for appellants.
L. Z. Banta, Pros. Atty., of Ava, for the State.
Defendants were convicted under an information charging possession of intoxicating liquor. Defendant Price's punishment was fixed by the jury at a fine of $350, and Hatfield's at $250. Failing to get a new trial, they appealed.
Defendant Price had been staying at defendant Hatfield's home for some time prior to the date of the alleged offense. There was a search warrant issued to search Hatfield's dwelling, and delivered to the sheriff for service. He went to Hatfield's place of business and advised him that he had a warrant authorizing search of his dwelling. Hatfield in reply said that he had better go along to see that the sheriff did not get anything. Hatfield accompanied the sheriff, and when they got to the door Hatfield said to his wife, "You better hide your whisky; here is the sheriff." After this remark the sheriff said he heard a door slam, and that he Defendant Hatfield was a witness, and testified that there was no liquor of his own at his house, and that he did not know anything about Price having any there. He stated that he made the remark about hiding liquor to his wife in a joking way. It was shown that defendant Hatfield had previously pleaded guilty to selling liquor and to possession.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency and the competency of the evidence. We think there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and do not deem it necessary to go further into detail on this assignment. The assignment on the competency of the evidence concerns the search warrant. Defendant filed no motion to quash the warrant or to suppress the evidence obtained thereunder. An objection was made to the introduction of any evidence obtained by means of the search warrant. The search warrant had been lost, and because of this fact defendant says he could not file a motion to quash or suppress. The warrant could have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Gooch
... ... the part of applicant. State v. Lock, 259 S.W. 116; ... State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, ... 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; ... State v. Shellman, 267 S.W. 941; State v ... Huckobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Price, 274 S.W ... 500; Ex parte Buford, 2 L.Ed. 495; State v. Baltes, ... 198 N.W. 285; Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 499, ... 69 L.Ed. 757; People v. De La Mater, 182 N.W. 58; ... Tenpenny v. State, 270 S.W. 989; Steele v ... State, 270 U.S. 504, 69 L.Ed. 761; People v. Vander ... ...
-
Cameron v. State
... ... of liquor buried on the premises is prima facie evidence of ... unlawful possession, State v. Chambers, 286 S.W ... 744. Dr. Turner testified that defendant was in possession by ... arrangement with him. The judgment is supported by State ... v. Briggs, 281 S.W. 107; State v. Price, 274 ... S.W. 500; Long v. State, 15 Wyo. 263; Curran v ... State, 12 Wyo. 569; State v. Collett, 75 P ... 271; Roark v. People, 244 P. 909; Flannery v ... Comm., 282 S.W. 1065; Snedegar v. State, 150 ... N.E. 366. There was a conflict of evidence as to possession, ... but the jury found ... ...
- State v. Juden
-
State v. Sheeler
...warrant its submission to the jury. State v. Blocker (Mo. App.) 274 S. W. 1097; State, v. Cobb, 309 Mo. 89, 273 S. W. 736; State v. Price (Mo. App.) 274 S. W. 500; State v. Brokaw (Mo. App.) 281 S. W. It is urged that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to indorse upon th......