Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 38570,38570 |
| Citation | 61 So.2d 793,216 Miss. 158 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
R. S. Tullos and O. O. Weathersby, Raleigh, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The principal question in this case is whether a lawful entry under and by authority of a search warrant for intoxicating liquor precludes a legal seizure of recognized stolen property found on the premises searched, and whether evidence of this stolen property obtained by means of this search and seizure is admissible against appellant, who was charged with theft of it.
Appellant, Monroe Williams, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Smith County of grand larceny, for the theft of two butane gas heaters and one twenty-five gallon butane gas bottle belonging to named trustees of the Mr. Zion Baptist Church. The theft occurred on Saturday night, February 16, 1952. Appellant was tried, convicted of this crime, and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. He was convicted principally upon the testimony of an asserted confederate in the crime, Earl Beavers, and upon the evidence obtained by the search of his premises as described subsequently. There was also circumstantial evidence for the state. Appellant testified and denied the facts of the crime as evidenced by the state's witnesses, particularly the testimony of his asserted confederate, Earl Beavers. We will not detail the facts, but if the evidence obtained as a result of the search of appellant's home was admissible, the issues of fact in the trial were properly questions for the jury and the conviction is supported by the evidence.
A. E. Bounds, Sheriff of Smith County, testified that he was first notified of the theft on Sunday morning about 9:30 A.M., and that he went to the Church with Hushel Moss and Pet Robinson, deputy sheriffs. After leaving the Church, they went down to a justice of the peace and swore out an affidavit for a search warrant for appellant's home, and obtained the search warrant for the purpose of searching for intoxicating liquors. The search warrant authorized the officers to enter appellant's premises to search for intoxicating liquors, stills, and integral parts thereof. When the officers arrived at appellant's home at about 1 P.M. of the same day, appellant was not present. A copy of the search warrant was served upon his wife. The officers then entered the premises and made a search for intoxicating liquors. During this search, they also found the tank and the two heaters which had been stolen from the Church. The stolen property was found in the open yard by the side of appellant's smoke-house, which was located about fifteen or twenty steps to the rear of his residence. The sheriff said that they were hunting for whiskey, and that they found some, two half-pints, in the road nearby but not on appellant's premises. He further said:
'
When he first saw the butane system he did not know it was the stolen property, but upon examining it and the serial numbers, he ascertained that it was. The stolen goods were not covered with anything but were behind the smoke-house on the outside of it. Before the officers left appellant appeared and went up to the house with them, where the officers loaded the stolen property on their car. Although the record is not clear on this point, apparently the officers arrested appellant at the same time. However, even if that is the fact, the search was not incident to the arrest. The sheriff further testified that they were about four or five miles from a justice of the peace, but that they did not feel that it was necessary to get another search warrant for the stolen property after they had found it.
Hushel Moss, deputy sheriff, testified that he went with the sheriff to the church. He further said:
'
He stated that they searched the premises for whiskey and found some in the road. He then testified
Moss said, with reference to looking for whiskey, 'we were looking for both--I was'. He then stated:
'A. When I was at the church, I asked the question if they knew of anybody that came by there going to a certain place on the river where they were handling whiskey, and they told me they did and they gave me these boys names, Earl Beavers----
'Q. And Williams? A. And Williams. I told them, 'We have had lots of complaints about whiskey and we are going to search for whiskey and maybe find the system.'
* * *
'
'
Pet Robinson, deputy sheriff, also testified concerning the essential facts outlined above.
Appellant made proper objections to this evidence, and now argues that it was erroneously admitted. We think that the trial court was warranted in finding that the sheriff had probable cause for obtaining the issuance of the search warrant for intoxicating liquors, and that the search warrant for that commodity was legal and proper. Hence the officers were lawfully on the premises. The present question is whether they could seize stolen property found there.
In Tucker v. State, 1922, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 845, 24 A.L.R. 1377, Tucker was convicted of the unlawful making of intoxicating liquor. Officers without a search warrant searched appellant's home and premises, and found a still and some whiskey. The court held that Mississippi Constitution Secs. 23 and 26 were violated by this search, and that evidence taken thereby was illegally obtained and not admissible in evidence. Miss.Constitution Sec. 23 provides that the people shall be secure from 'unreasonable seizure or search', and that no warrant shall be issued without probable cause specially designating 'the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized'. Miss.Constitution Sec. 26 provides that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to give evidence against himself. The court adopted the Federal rule with reference to evidence obtained by an illegal search. The Tucker case was reaffirmed in Owens v. State, 1923, 133 Miss. 753, 98 So. 233, and numerous later decisions.
In Reynolds v. State, 1924, 136 Miss. 329, 101 So. 485, 486, appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of a still, which was found on appellant's premises. The search warrant only authorized a search for intoxicating liquors. The Court said:
We think that the Reynolds case is applicable to the present facts. The officers were lawfully on the premises, and saw this stolen property. Its possession was known to be illegal, and they had the right to seize it.
Appellant relies upon Cofer v. State, 1928, 152 Miss. 761, 118 So. 613, 616. Cofer was convicted of murder. Pruitt was killed at night by unknown persons, and four empty shotgun shells were found by the body, all being 12-gauge buckshot shells. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lockett v. State
...Isaacks v. State, 350 So.2d 1340, 1344 (Miss.1977); Prueitt v. State, 261 So.2d 119, 124-25 (Miss.1972); Williams v. State, 216 Miss. 158, 168, 61 So.2d 793, 797 (1953); Cofer, 152 Miss. at 770, 118 So. at 615; see also Caldwell v. State, 194 So.2d 878, 881 (Miss.1967) (incriminating box fo......
-
Keys v. State
...officers to seize the beer, under the circumstances, and their testimony with respect to it was properly admitted. Williams v. State, 216 Miss. 158, 61 So.2d 793 (1953).' 234 So.2d at 'An objection was made to the introduction of the affidavit and warrant, but not to the testimony of the of......
-
State v. Causey
...This latter category would include stolen goods, . . .' See also, State v. Griffin, 84 N.J.Super. 508, 202 A.2d 856; Williams v. State, 216 Miss. 158, 61 So.2d 793. In accord, see Dugan v. State, 130 Ga.App. 527, 532, 203 S.E.2d 722. The search warrant was not invalid for lack of descriptio......
-
Prueitt v. State
...91 (Cal.1970); Commonwealth v. Watcik, 266 N.E.2d 645 (Mass.1971); Caldwell v. State, 194 So.2d 878 (Miss.1967); Williams v. State, 216 Miss. 158, 61 So.2d 793 (1953). The officers were lawfully in the house. The property was in open view, and much of it was recognized as stolen The house h......