The State v. Bunch

Decision Date19 March 1925
Docket Number25766
PartiesTHE STATE v. LUTHER BUNCH, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Shannon Circuit Court; Hon. E. P. Dorris Judge.

Affirmed.

Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and Wm. L. Vandeventer, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) The information followed the words of the statute and was sufficient. Laws 1913, sec. 2, p. 237; State v Nash, 283 Mo. 32; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 710. (2) Before it is error to introduce evidence secured by virtue of an illegal search warrant, timely motion to suppress must be filed. Such was not done in this case. State v. Lock, 259 S.W. 125; State v Owens, 259 S.W. 102. (3) Defendant cannot complain of the search by virtue of an illegal warrant, where the premises searched are not his. Lakes v. Commonwealth, 254 S.W. 908; Bowling v. Commonwealth, 193 Ky. 642; Lusco v. United States, 287 F. 69; United States v. Kaplan, 286 F. 963; Jones v. United States, 296 F. 632. (4) The instructions fully covered the case, including presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.

Railey, C. Higbee, C., concurs.

OPINION
RAILEY

On March 7, 1924, the Prosecuting Attorney of Shannon County, Missouri, filed in the circuit court of said county, an information, which, without its caption and verification, reads as follows:

"L. N. Searcy, Prosecuting Attorney within and for the County of Shannon and State of Missouri, under his oath of office and upon his own knowledge, information and belief, informs the court that Luther Bunch, on or about the 6th day of December, 1923, at the County of Shannon and State of Missouri, did then and there unlawfully, willfully and feloniously use in this State a still, worm, doubler and other distilling and brewing equipment and utensils in the process of distilling, brewing and manufacturing intoxicating liquor for sale, contrary to law and against the peace and dignity of the State.

The defendant was formally arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. He was placed upon trial before a jury and, on March 10, 1924, the following unanimous verdict was returned:

" We, the jury find the defendant, Luther Bunch, guilty, as charged in the information, and we do assess his punishment at two (2) years in the State Penitentiary."

Defendant, in due time, filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled. After judgment was entered, and sentence pronounced on defendant in conformity to the verdict aforesaid, he was granted an appeal to this court.

The defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence at the conclusion of the State's case, which was overruled. He stood upon said demurrer, and offered no testimony at the trial of the cause.

The evidence of the State tends to show that W. B. Powell, Deputy Sheriff of Shannon County, who lived at Eminence in said county, had a search warrant for the farm of Andrew Bunch, located in Moore Township. Appellant is the son of said Andrew Bunch. The deputy sheriff aforesaid, armed with said search warrant, searched the premises of Andrew Bunch, and found in the smokehouse of the latter a half bushel of sprouted corn, and up in the field of said Andrew Bunch found three barrels of mash, and an iron barrel and doubler, used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, but no worm was found. After the place had been searched, and the mash found, Powell came back to the house of Andrew Bunch, and defendant went with him up to the still. It had snowed the night before, and they tracked the wagon to where the mash was found. While at the house, the deputy sheriff said to Andrew Bunch:

"I found this mash and stuff on your farm, but you are not able to go to town, but in my judgment when you get able to come the prosecuting attorney will get a warrant out against you, and you come."

Thereupon Luther Bunch, the defendant, spoke up and said "No," the stuff belonged to him, and that his partner had the worm.

There was other evidence offered on the part of the State tending to show that the defendant, when he was brought to town, made the statement that he had made whiskey and sold it in three counties, to-wit, Reynolds, Dent and Shannon. He was referring to the still at this time.

This was substantially all of the testimony in the case.

The pleadings, motions, instructions and rulings of the court, as far as necessary, will be considered in the opinion.

I. The body of the information is heretofore set out in full and is sufficient in law, as to both form and substance. [Laws 1923, sec. 2, p. 237; State v. Nash, 283 Mo. 32, 222 S.W. 396; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. l. c. 711.]

Section 2, Laws 1923, supra, reads as follows:

"If any person shall use in this State any still, worm, doubler, or other distilling, or brewing equipment or utensils whatsoever, in the process of distilling, brewing, or otherwise manufacturing any intoxicating liquor for sale or transportation for sale contrary to the provisions of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of two years. . . ."

The appellant has filed no brief in this court, but we find on examination that in his motion for a new trial he complains of the court's rulings in several particulars which will be considered.

II. Defendant filed a motion to quash the information, on the ground that it attempts to charge more than one offense in the same count, and because defendant was not informed as to which charge he would be compelled to meet. The information is heretofore set out and speaks for itself. It sufficiently informed defendant as to the charge which he was required to defend against, and is not subject to the criticism leveled against it. The court committed no error in overruling the motion to quash the information.

III. The defendant filed a motion to require the State to produce the search warrant under which the Deputy Sheriff of Shannon County searched the premises of Andrew Bunch, the father of defendant. The court sustained said motion, and the search warrant could not be found, but it appears from the evidence of the deputy sheriff that the search war rant called for empowered the officer to search the premises of Andrew Bunch for violations of the State Prohibition Law and, while acting under this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Tull
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1933
    ... ... evidence is relevant and competent. It will not pause to ... determine the collateral question as to how the evidence was ... obtained. [State v. Owens, 302 Mo. 348, 359, 259 ... S.W. 100; State v. Grubbs, 316 Mo. 243, 251, 289 ... S.W. 852 (larceny case); State v. Bunch, 307 Mo ... 411, 415, 270 S.W. 282; State v. Zugras, 306 Mo ... 492, 496, 267 S.W. 804; State v. Wagner, 311 Mo ... 391, 279 S.W. 23, 29 (larceny).] ...          III ... Complaint is made of certain questions propounded to ... defendant on cross-examination as improper because ... ...
  • The State v. Condit
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1925
  • State v. Swafford
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1928
    ... ... Laws 1923, p. 237, which denounces the use of a still, etc., ... in the process of the making of intoxicating liquor ... State v. Lofton (Mo. Sup.) 1 S.W.2d 830; State ... v. Griffith, 311 Mo. 630, 279 S.W. 135; State v ... Bunch, 307 Mo. 411, 270 S.W. 282 ...          IV.In ... his motion for a new trial the appellant complains of the ... refusal of the trial court to give a cautionary instruction ... asked by him to the effect that the testimony of the officers ... engaged as detectives to investigate ... ...
  • Kinney v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1926
    ... ... loc. cit. 701, 702; State ... v. Fenley (Mo. Sup.) 275 S.W. 36; State v. Forshee, 308 Mo ... 651, 274 S.W. 419; State v. Cobb (Mo. Sup.) 273 S.W. 736; ... State v. Combs (Mo. Sup.) 273 S.W. loc. cit. 1038, 1039; ... State v. Bennett et al. (Mo. Sup.) 270 S.W. 295, 296; State ... v. Bunch, 307 Mo. 411, 270 S.W. 282; State v. Richardson (Mo ... Sup.) 267 S.W. loc. cit. 842 ...          III ... The instructions given by the court properly declared the ... law, and no others were necessary to enable the jury to ... intelligently pass upon the merits of the case ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT