State v. Raines
| Citation | 98 S.W.2d 580,339 Mo. 884 |
| Parties | The State v. L. E. Raines, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1936 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Hon. Aubrey R. Hammett Judge.
Affirmed.
Lionel Davis for appellant.
(1) The court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Gaines as to what he saw, heard or learned on his raid of appellant's dwelling, under the invalid search warrant. State v. Raebasti, 267 S.W. 858; State v Owens, 259 S.W. 102. (2) The court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Joe Cooper, as to what he saw, heard or learned, when he accompanied the sheriff on the raid of the dwelling of this defendant, which raid was made under the invalid search warrant. State v. Raebaste, 267 S.W. 858; State v. Owens, 259 S.W. 102. (3) The court erred in admitting in evidence, State's Exhibit 1, a shirt alleged to have been procured from the dwelling of defendant, in a raid made thereon under the invalid search warrant, after the court had quashed the said warrant. State v. Owens, 259 S.W. 100. (4) The court erred in overruling the objections of defendant to the testimony of the witness Cooper. (5) The court erred in overruling the objection of defendant to the argument of the prosecuting attorney, that the defendant had attended college in the State of Kansas, because it was outside the record. (6) The verdict is manifestly the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Wm. W. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
The search warrant did not lead to the discovery of any facts that could not have been lawfully discovered without a search warrant, therefore the evidence should have been admitted although search warrant was quashed. State v. Wann, 15 S.W.2d 938; State v. Zugras, 306 Mo. 497; State v. Cobb, 309 Mo. 101.
Cooley, C. Westhues and Bohling, CC., concur.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and larceny, his punishment being assessed by the jury at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary for each offense. From sentence and judgment on the verdict he appeals. Originally appellant and Willie Lee Fisher (both negroes), were charged jointly. Fisher was granted a severance and appellant was tried alone. We shall refer to him as the defendant. The principal question presented on this appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence obtained by the officers in searching defendant's room at the time of his arrest. The State's evidence tended to show the following:
Mr. and Mrs. J. R. Scott operated a laundry and dry cleaning establishment at Fayette, Howard County. We shall refer to their building as the laundry. On the night of August 28, 1934, some person or persons broke into and entered the laundry through a window and stole therefrom a number of shirts and some other articles of wearing apparel, some tablecloths and pillow slips. About midnight that night the sheriff saw defendant and Fisher standing at the mouth of an alley (we understand the alley was near the laundry) and in an hour or so "saw them both coming up from in front of the laundry and go down the alley." He attached no significance to those occurrences at the time.
Adjacent to or within a few feet of the laundry there was a building owned by Guy T. Halley, a funeral director, used as a funeral home for negro funerals. At and for some months prior to the occurrences herein involved defendant was employed by Halley as caretaker and slept in the funeral home building. For the purposes of this case said place may be considered as defendant's then place of abode. By Halley's consent Fisher was sleeping there with defendant.
On the morning following the burglary George Dougherty, an employee at the laundry, discovered that the building had been broken into and entered through a window and that a number of articles, which he "checked up," including the shirts, had been stolen. He reported the facts to Joe Cooper, a police officer of Fayette, who made an investigation. It was discovered, among other things, and the burglar, or one of them, in making his exit through the window, had stepped into a sack of powdered soap, some of which had evidently adhered to his shoe, causing it to leave visible tracks outside. The tracks led to the back door of the funeral home.
About two weeks after the burglary a search warrant was issued and delivered to the sheriff, directing a search of the funeral home. The sheriff, Tom Gaines, accompanied by Joe Cooper, went to said place and there arrested defendant and searched his room, finding and seizing three shirts which, at the trial, were introduced in evidence over defendant's objections and were identified as property stolen from the laundry. One belonged to Dougherty, one to Bob Hancock and one to a Dr. Shaw. Other of the stolen shirts were subsequently found at Fisher's home, his mother's house, but we need consider only those found in defendant's rooms.
Before trial defendant filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress "all evidence seized, procured, heard, seen or learned" thereunder by the officers on the ground that the warrant was void because in violation of Section 11, Article 2 of the State Constitution, in that it did not sufficiently describe the premises to be searched and that the affidavit on which it was issued did not state facts showing probable cause for its issuance. (The search warrant itself is not set out in the record.) When the motion came up for hearing the prosecuting attorney indicated to the court that he did not propose to offer evidence that would not be admissible absent a search warrant, his contention being that the evidence he proposed to offer was rightly obtained as incident to a lawful arrest and admissible for that reason. Thereupon defendant's counsel said: Without further hearing the court ruled:
We make this detailed statement of the facts relative to the search warrant as it may help to clarify the issue to be determined as to the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the search that was made when defendant was arrested. As to that question:
When the State, at the trial, began offering evidence the defendant objected to any evidence obtained at the time and place of his arrest on the ground that it was procured by means of the search warrant, which was invalid and had been quashed. The jury was temporarily excused and in its absence the court heard evidence, before passing on the objection, to this effect: Joe Cooper testified that before the search warrant was issued he had made the investigation we have referred to, describing what he discovered thereby, and also that Dougherty had told him that he had seen defendant wearing one of his, Dougherty's, shirts which had been stolen and which Dougherty had said he recognized. Gaines, the sheriff, testified that Hancock, whose shirt had been stolen, had told him before the warrant was issued that he had seen defendant "with his (Hancock's) shirt" and that Dougherty also had told him later that he had seen defendant wearing his (Dougherty's) shirt, describing it and telling how he recognized it. Later in the trial, and before the jury, that testimony was, in substance, repeated, except that Gaines then said that the information given him by Dougherty was given after the issuance of the search warrant but before he made the arrest. Gaines also testified that before the arrest and after Hancock and Dougherty had told him about seeing defendant wearing their shirts, "I asked Mr. Cooper some questions about it and we talked it over and finally went there and arrested him." He was not asked and did not say what Cooper told him. The testimony of both officers shows that they proceeded to the funeral home, where defendant then was; that the sheriff knocked on the door, which was opened by the defendant; that the sheriff thereupon and without any preliminary inquiry arrested defendant and then, with Cooper's aid, searched his living quarters in the funeral home and found and seized the three shirts which, at the trial, were introduced in evidence. The sheriff had no warrant for defendant's arrest, nor had any complaint been filed charging defendant with an offense. The sheriff had the search warrant in his pocket but did not produce it nor inform defendant that he had it.
Fisher, defendant's alleged accomplice, testified without objection for the State. He testified in substance that he and the defendant, about twelve o'clock on the night of August 28, 1934, broke into and entered the laundry and stole therefrom a number of shirts and other things such as Dougherty testified were found missing the next morning. There was other corroborating evidence.
Defendant, testifying for himself, denied having had anything to do with the burglary and larceny. There was evidence pro and con as to defendant's character. It is needless further to detail the evidence. Although in his motion for new trial defendant complained that his demurrer to the evidence at the close of the case should have been sustained, that proposition is not advanced in his brief here and could not be successfully urged. The State's evidence, if true, -- a question for the jury, -- is clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict
As forecast in our statement the principal question in this case is as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Humphrey
... ... (1) The ... court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to ... suppress evidence. State v. Burnett, 354 Mo. 45, 188 ... S.W.2d 51; Hanser v. Bieber, 197 S.W. 68, 271 Mo ... 236; Wehmeyer v. Mulvihill, 150 Mo.App. 197, 130 ... S.W. 681; State v. Raines, 339 Mo. 884, 98 S.W.2d ... 580; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489, 32 S.W. 1002 ... (2) The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction ... State v. Emerson, 318 Mo. 633, 1 S.W.2d 109; ... State v. Wilkerson, 170 Mo. 184, 70 S.W. 478; Secs ... 4704, 4705, R.S. 1939; State v. Kaub, 15 ... ...
-
State v. Smith
... ... evidence alleged to have been obtained by unlawful search and ... seizure. Secs. 8358(a), 8359, 8383, 8404(d), R.S. 1939; ... State v. Padgett, 316 Mo. 179, 289 S.W. 954; ... State v. Hadlock, 316 Mo. 1, 289 S.W. 945; State ... v. Raines, 339 Mo. 884, 98 S.W.2d 580. Secs. 11, 23, ... Art. II, Mo. Constitution of 1875. (3) The court did not err ... in allowing the state to exhibit before the jury a pinch bar, ... ball hammer, two license plates, two screw drivers, two pair ... of shoes, and other articles taken from the person ... ...
-
State v. Biswell
...of Instruction E, which is an instruction requested by the defendant as to self-defense. State v. Fultz, 142 S.W.2d 39; State v. Raines, 98 S.W.2d 580, 339 Mo. 884; State v. Adams, 98 S.W.2d 692, 339 Mo. 926. Appellant's Assignment of Error Number Nineteen is insufficient for review. Sec. 4......
-
State v. Hepperman
...the motion to suppress certain evidence, found in the home as alleged in the motion. State v. Rebasti, 267 S.W. 858; State v. Raines, 98 S.W.2d 580, 339 Mo. 884; State v. Askew, 56 S.W.2d 52, 331 Mo. 684; v. Steeley, 33 S.W.2d 938. (7) Appellant's pleas in bar and abatement are wholly witho......