State v. Wann

• Decision Date: 30 March 1929
• Docket Number: No. 4521.,4521.
• Citation: State v. Wann, 15 S.W.2d 938 (Mo. App. 1929)
• Parties: STATE v. WANN et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

15 S.W.2d 938

STATE v. WANN et al.

No. 4521.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 30, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Iron County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

George Wann, Oscar Payne, Bill Payne, and Melvin Williams were convicted of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, and they appeal. Affirmed as to defendants Wann, Bill Payne, and Williams, and reversed as to defendant Oscar Payne.

J. H. Keith, of Ironton, and L. F. Kinder, of Farmington, for appellants.

J. Arthur Francis and Arthur T. Brewster, both of Ironton, for the State.

COX, P. J.

Defendants were charged with the offense of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. On trial by jury, they were all found guilty and a fine of $200 assessed against each defendant. From the judgment rendered on the verdict, defendants appealed.

A search warrant had been procured, and the officers in executing this search warrant went to a log cabin, which they reached by following down a hollow about one mile. This cabin was not occupied as a residence, and apparently was not under the control of any person living near it. As the officers approached the cabin, they saw the defendants in single file leaving the cabin. One of these defendants had a keg on his shoulder. The officers stopped them and placed them under arrest. The keg which one of the defendants had on his shoulder was found to contain intoxicating liquor.

The defendants filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence procured by the officers while serving it. This was overruled, and that action of the court is assigned as error. The ground on which it is contended the search warrant was void is that the description of the place to be searched is not sufficiently definite to comply with the requirements of the State Constitution.

We do not deem it necessary in this case to pass upon the legality of the search warrant. The evidence does not disclose that any constitutional right of defendants was infringed upon by the search made in this case. The liquor was found on a man's shoulder as defendants went away from the cabin, and could as easily have been found without a search warrant as with one. Had the officer gone to the place at the same time without a search warrant, he would have discovered the same facts. The search warrant did not lead to the discovery of any facts that could not have been lawfully discovered without a search warrant, and, when that is true, the evidence would have been admissible even if the warrant had been held to be void. State v. Zugras, 306 Mo. 492, 497, 267 S. W. 804; State v. Cobb, 309 Mo. 89, 101, 102, 273 S. W. 736.

It is next insisted that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict and that defendants' demurrer to ...