Woodson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | 163 |
| Citation | 2 S.W.2d 1108,176 Ark. 153 |
| Parties | WOODSON v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court; W. D. Davenport, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
F. P Fitzsimmons and Griffin Smith, for appellant.
H. W Applegate, Attorney General, and Darden Moose, Assistant, for appellee.
The appellant, Sidney Woodson, was indicted by the Lee County grand jury on April 7, 1926, charged with making and fermenting mash fit for the manufacture of distilled spirits, etc.
Z. C. Smith, the sheriff of the county, testified that, acting on information that the defendant was making whiskey, he went to his residence to arrest him, and approached by way of the kitchen, the door of which was open. That there were two fifty-gallon barrels of mash and possibly two or three smaller barrels against the wall of the kitchen.
Appellant objected to this testimony, the objection was overruled, and exception saved.
Witness said the fifty-gallon barrels were full of mash, the kind used for making whiskey; that appellant at that time was fifty or a hundred yards away, cutting corn or cotton stalks. Witness was accompanied by his deputy, Mr. Clay, who started to arrest the defendant. The defendant escaped arrest. Witness had a warrant for defendant's arrest from the time the indictment was returned until the arrest was actually made. Defendant was first arrested "just a short time ago; around four or five weeks ago." Witness did not have a search warrant to search the premises, and did not have a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. The stuff was in the kitchen, and he could not tell what was in the barrels until he went into the house. When the witness saw the mash, defendant was cutting stalks. When they saw what they thought was mash, Clay went out to arrest defendant, and then they went into the house and poured the stuff out and found that it was mash.
On cross-examination witness said he could not tell what was in the barrels until he went into the house. Did not find any whiskey.
The evidence offered by the defendant tended to show that what they found was not mash, and the defendant himself testified that he was out cutting cornstalks, and the first knowledge he had of the presence of the officers was when Mr. Clay came out and asked him if he lived up there. When defendant answered "Yes," Mr. Clay said, "Come on up here." Witness told him all right, and went down to the lower end, and intended to go back to the house, and looked back, and the deputy had run about 30 or 40 yards with a pistol in his hand. Witness said he did not know who it was, and, for that reason, he ran. He was gone about an hour before he came back. He stayed there, and helped make and plant a crop, and helped pick it. He left home the 7th day of August and came back the 23d of September. He testified that the containers in the house were used for holding slop. That he had purchased some bran and chops from Mr. McClintock; that he had four hogs; that there was no sugar in the mixture, nor syrup.
Appellant contends that the evidence obtained by an unlawful search of his house should have been excluded, and this was the only evidence tending to show that there was mash in the barrels. If this evidence was properly admitted, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Browning
...warrant was illegally issued, or the officers making the search had no warrant at all and were trespassers." See also Woodson v. State, 176 Ark. 153, 2 S.W.2d 1108. In Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, 11th Ed., page 1023, § 610, the writer says: "The mere fact that a confession is made ......
-
State v. Browning
... ... Ark. 694, 1 S.W.2d 45. Under the doctrine of all of these ... cases the admissibility of such evidence is not affected, by ... the fact that the search warrant was illegally issued, or the ... officers making the search had no warrant at all and were ... trespassers." See, also, Woodson v ... State, 176 Ark. 153, 2 S.W.2d 1108 ... In ... Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, 11th Ed., p. 1023, ... § 610, the writer says: "The mere fact that a [206 ... Ark. 795] confession is made while the maker is in the ... custody of a police officer, or even while ... ...
-
Haire v. Sarver, PB-69-C-31.
...1081, the rule in Arkansas was that evidence was not inadmissible merely because it was unlawfully obtained. See e. g. Woodson v. State, 176 Ark. 153, 2 S.W.2d 1108; Milton v. City of Fort Smith, 175 Ark. 694, 1 S.W.2d Many officers simply felt that they did not need warrants to search for ......
-
McGinnis v. State, 35.
...much of which was denied by appellant and some of his witnesses, is sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Woodson v. State, 176 Ark. 153, 2 S.W.(2d) 1108; Newcomb v. State, 177 Ark. 509, 7 S.W.(2d) 802; Jackson v. State, 160 Ark. 198, 254 S. W. 531; Lynn v. State, 169 Ark. 880, 27......