State v. Sauer
Decision Date | 16 June 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 33729.,33729. |
Citation | 217 Minn. 591,15 N.W.2d 17 |
Parties | STATE v. SAUER. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Crow Wing County; Alfred L. Thwing, Judge.
James A. Sauer was convicted of keeping a disorderly resort, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Ryan, Ryan & Ryan, of Brainerd, for appellant.
J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., Ralph A. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. J. Sullivan, Co. Atty., of Brainerd, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of keeping a disorderly resort. Through substituted attorneys he appeals from an order denying him a new trial.
Defendant admits that the facts as disclosed by the evidence support the verdict. He claims that he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged errors committed at the trial.
1. Defendant operates a hotel in the city of Brainerd. In the early morning of March 20, 1943, three police officers entered the hotel searching for a missing girl. While going through the building they discovered facts which later led to the arrest of defendant. The officers had no search warrant. Before they left the building they came into possession of the hotel register and took it with them. At the trial it was offered and received in evidence over defendant's objection. He contends that it should not have been received in evidence and that the court erred.
R. F. Titus, one of the officers, when asked how he came into possession of the hotel register, testified:
It thus appears that the register was voluntarily exhibited and surrendered to the officers.
Defendant relies on State v. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205, 94 N.W. 675; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 195 N.W. 789; and State v. Kaasa, 198 Minn. 181, 269 N.W. 365. In the Stoffels case, this court stated (89 Minn. 210, 94 N.W. 677):
(Italics supplied.)
The Stoffels, Pluth, and Kaasa cases involved the search for and seizure of intoxicating liquors in and of themselves illegal and contraband. City of Mankato v. Grabowenski, 154 Minn. 265, 267, 191 N.W. 603, gives the rule in this state as follows:
See State v. Kaasa, 198 Minn. 181, 269 N.W. 365.
The evidence discloses that the hotel register in question was used as a "means of perpetrating" the crime of keeping a disorderly resort. It was "kept and used for an unlawful purpose." Defendant permitted persons not married to each other to sign the register as "Mr. and Mrs." and under assumed names. Furthermore, the register was voluntarily exhibited and surrendered, with no demand made for its return. State v. Silver, 169 Minn. 513, 211 N.W. 463. In State v. Rogne, 115 Minn. 204, 132 N.W. 5, the articles seized were pieces of scrap iron, not inherently illegal or contraband. This court held that they were properly received in evidence. In State v. Ryan, 156 Minn. 186, 191, 194 N.W. 396, 398, this court said:
"* * * Whether searches and seizures are unreasonable depends upon the character of the articles procured and the circumstances under which the same are obtained."
Since the hotel register here was used as a means of perpetrating the crime of keeping a disorderly house — an unlawful purpose — it was clearly admissible in evidence.
2. Error is assigned upon the reception of certain testimony as to the general reputation of defendant's hotel. Defendant recognizes the general rule that competent evidence of general reputation is admissible. State v. Bresland, 59 Minn. 281, 61 N.W. 450; State v. Rogers, 145 Minn. 303, 177 N.W. 358. He contends, however, that evidence of that character must be limited to a time shortly before and shortly after, and that certain evidence received in this case was too far removed in time from the date charged in the information. In the Rogers case it is stated (145 Minn. 306, 177 N.W. 359) that the "offense charged consists of a course of conduct continuing in its nature." It follows that a rule unduly limiting testimony showing the character of the place to a time shortly before the date of the offense charged in the information would be too restrictive. In State v. Riebe, 174 Minn. 603, 218 N.W. 557, the court permitted a police officer to testify that he knew of the reputation of the place and that people from that district had talked to him concerning it within the preceding six months. This court held the evidence admissible. In the instant case the reputation continued up to the time set out in the information. The court in its memorandum aptly put it this way:
"* * * That some of them...
To continue reading
Request your trial