State v. Snodgrass
| Decision Date | 26 September 1922 |
| Docket Number | 4519. |
| Citation | 114 S.E. 136,91 W.Va. 553 |
| Parties | STATE v. SNODGRASS. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted September 19, 1922.
Syllabus by the Court.
The unlawful arrest of one suspected of a crime is no bar to his prosecution for the offense upon a proper warrant or indictment subsequently issued or found against him.
The testimony of witnesses to the effect that one charged with crime committed certain acts which constitute the offense is not rendered incompetent because such witnesses, who are officers, subsequently arrested the alleged offender without a warrant.
The testimony of a witness is not limited to the facts observed by him through any one of the senses. Information communicated through any of his senses is proper matter of evidence, if otherwise pertinent.
Error to Circuit Court, Marion County.
J Russell Snodgrass was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory laws, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Henry S. Lively, of Fairmont, for plaintiff in error.
E. T England, Atty. Gen., and R. Dennis Steed, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The defendant by this writ of error seeks reversal of a judgment of the criminal court of Marion county, which judgment the circuit court of said county refused to review, convicting him of a violation of the prohibition laws, and sentencing him to pay a fine, and to be imprisoned in the county jail.
It appears that just prior to the 6th day of July, 1921, the sheriff of Marion county had information that the defendant was engaged in the liquor business in violation of law. Several attempts had been made before that time to detect the defendant in his supposed violations of law, but the sheriff says that on each of the former occasions in some way the defendant received notice of the operations of the officers against him, and for that reason the same were ineffectual. On this occasion, in order to prevent the defendant from having notice of his movements, the sheriff left the county seat late at night, and reached Mannington, the place where the defendant was thought to be operating, in the night, and did not allow his presence there to be known until nearly noon of the next day, believing that by that time the defendant would be on the road with his supply of liquor, and could not be notified of the presence of the officers before he could be detected. Shortly before noon on the 6th of July the sheriff, together with some of his deputies, left Mannington in an automobile over the road upon which they expected the defendant to be traveling toward Mannington. At a point some distance from the town of Mannington they met an automobile in which were riding four persons, the defendant being one of them. Upon approaching this machine the sheriff observed the defendant riding on the front seat with the driver with a large package wrapped up in newspapers in his possession. He held up his hand as a signal for the automobile to stop, but instead of stopping the sheriff says that the defendant, with whom he is well acquainted, called to the driver to go on, and that the automobile, instead of reducing its speed, increased its speed at that time; that immediately thereafter the defendant raised the package which he was carrying and struck it violently across the automobile door, as a result of which a number of bottles were broken and the fragments of broken glass and the contents thereof cast upon the road and in the automobile; that immediately upon this happening the sheriff's party turned their car and went in pursuit of the car in which the defendant was riding. After traversing some little distance they overtook this car, but the defendant was not in it at that time They placed the other parties under arrest, and observed in the car at the place where the defendant had been sitting evidence of the fact that the bottles had been broken and a large part of their contents spilled in the car. They made like observations with like results at the point where the sheriff observed the defendant breaking the package. Not only was there broken glass upon the ground indicating that a number of bottles had been broken, but there was evidence that they had contained a considerable quantity of liquid, and the sense of smell indicated to all of the officers present that it was whisky. Information was given by some one that the defendant was at the house of a party living along the road, and upon going there he was discovered and arrested. At the time of his arrest the officers swear that there was a very strong odor of whisky emanating from his clothes. He was taken under arrest to Mannington, tried before a justice of the peace, and found guilty, and upon appeal to the criminal court of Marion county tried before a jury with a like result. The circuit court of that county refused to review the judgment of conviction, and this writ of error is prosecuted for that purpose.
The testimony given by the sheriff is corroborated in the main by the other officers who accompanied him, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial