Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 09 October 1928
• Docket Number: 25,331
• Citation: Walker v. State, 200 Ind. 303, 163 N.E. 229 (Ind. 1928)
• Parties: Walker v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

163 N.E. 229

200 Ind. 303

Walker v. State of Indiana

No. 25,331

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 9, 1928

1.CRIMINAL LAW---Invalidity of Search Warrant---Right of Defendant to Object to Evidence Procured.---A defendant charged with having possession of and using a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor has no right to object to the validity of a search warrant by which part of the evidence against him was procured where, on the trial, he denied ownership or control of the part of the house in which the still was found or of the still, and his objection to the admission of evidence obtained thereby was properly overruled. p. 306.

2.INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Possession of Still---Evidence Held Sufficient to Convict.---Testimony of another occupant of a house in which a still was found (synopsis set out in note 2 to the opinion) held sufficient to sustain conviction of defendant for having possession of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. p. 306.

3.CRIMINAL LAW---Conflict of Testimony---Reversal of Judgment.---Since the credibility of the witnesses is exclusively for the jury or for the trial court sitting as a jury, where the testimony is conflicting, the Supreme Court will not reverse the judgment if there was evidence to support the finding. p. 306.

4.CRIMINAL LAW---Invalid Search Warrant---Witnesses' Knowledge of Facts before Search---Admissibility.---The fact that a search of premises was made under an invalid search warrant would not close the mouths of witnesses against the defendant as to any facts coming within their knowledge prior to the search, even though the officers making the search would not have known of the witnesses if they had not made the search. p. 307.

From Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Charles P. Bock, Judge.

Earl Walker was convicted of having possession of and using a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

William D. Hardy, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.

OPINION

Martin, J.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for possessing and using a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor in violation of Acts 1925, ch. 48, § 6, § 2719 Burns 1926.Five officers--federal prohibition agents and city policemen--under authority of a search warrant issued by the city court raided a house at 431 Monroe Avenue in Evansville on February 4, 1926.Marion Eakins, alias "Byron Smith" and two other men were in the house.The officers found in the basement a sixty-gallon still, twenty-six gallons of whisky, twelve barrels of mash, and other equipment of an illicit whisky-manufacturing plant.Appellant, who was not present at the time of the raid, heard of it and became a fugitive, being arrested at St. Louis Missouri, some months later and returned for trial.

The appellant assigns as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial for the alleged reasons that certain evidence admitted was incompetent and that the finding of the court was contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence.The evidence complained of was testimony "as to what was seized by the officers and what was disclosed to them at the time they searched the premises," and which appellant contends was inadmissible because the search warrant was invalid.

No attack was made upon the search warrant by motion to quash or other pleading, but appellant, to sustain his objection to the testimony above referred to, introduced evidence which proved that there was not such a showing of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant before the issuing magistrate as this court(Martin and Gemmill, JJ., dissenting) in Wallace v. State(1927), 199 Ind. 317, 157 N.E. 657, has held to be necessary.

It is unnecessary to consider here the question of whether, without a formal attack upon the search warrant, its validity may be determined upon objection to testimony obtained by aid thereof, because: (1) It appears from the record that appellant, at the trial, disclaimed ownership or control of the premises or the still in question; and (2) other evidence in the record independent of that obtained by the search is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction.SeeVan Tornhaut v. State(1927), 199 Ind. 481, 157 N.E. 100.

The appellant in his testimony repeatedly declared that he was not the owner nor in possession or control of the place searched.^[1] His testimony that he did not pay any of the expenses of the house, did not occupy that portion of the house containing the still, together with his emphatic denial of any ownership of the still and his...