Title: State v. Manning

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

490 S.W.2d 512 (1973) STATE of Tennessee, Petitioner, v. Fred D. MANNING, Respondent. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 5, 1973. *513 David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., State of Tennessee, Alex B. Shipley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, H.H. Winstead, Dist. Atty. Gen., Rogersville, Charles E. Fraley, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Church Hill, for petitioner. Dale Quillen, Nashville, S.J. Anderson, Morristown, for respondent. CHATTIN, Justice. Respondent was indicted in two cases for the sale of legend drugs in violation of T.C.A. Section 52-1204, and a third case for the possession of legend drugs in violation of T.C.A. Section 52-1206. He was found guilty in each of the three cases and sentenced to not less than one nor more than five years imprisonment and a fine of $1000.00 in each case. The trial judge ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The Court of Criminal Appeals, by a split decision, dismissed the indictment for possession of legend drugs and reversed and remanded the other two convictions. We granted the State's petition for certiorari. The conviction of the unlawful possession of legend drugs was dismissed on the ground the evidence relied on by the State was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. In dismissing this conviction, the majority opinion states: *514 However, the facts are Ed Trent and Joel Seals, members of the Morristown Police Department, were patroling a street in that city about four A.M., on the morning of January 13, 1971, when they observed a car traveling at a very slow rate of speed. They had been ordered to stop cars using the streets during the late and early hours of the day which they deemed suspicious because recently many burglaries had occurred in the city during those hours. The officers stopped the car and asked respondent if they could search his car and he replied in the affirmative; and, in fact, opened the trunk of the car himself. An assortment of legend drugs was found in the interior of the car. Respondent testified concerning the search. He stated he permitted the officers to search his car only at their direction. On cross examination, the following occurred: In the case of Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir.1966), the Court said: Moreover, assuming the stopping of the car was an illegal arrest, there is no constitutional immunity from an unlawful arrest. The constitution only guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Satterfield v. State, 196 Tenn. 573, 269 S.W.2d 607 (1954); High v. State, 188 Tenn. 166, 217 S.W.2d 774 (1948). A permissive search by the owner is not an unlawful or unreasonable search. Deerfield v. State, 220 Tenn. 546, 420 S.W.2d 649 (1967). Furthermore, respondent took the stand and testified he did did not know the pills were in his car. Accordingly, it was error for the Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse the conviction and dismiss the indictment. *515 In reversing the two cases charging respondent with the unlawful sale of legend drugs, the Court of Criminal Appeals held respondent was denied a fair trial due to certain questions asked respondent and his mother on cross examination. The majority opinion states: The first instance relied on by the Court of Criminal Appeals occurred when the District Attorney General cross examined respondent, as follows: In the case of State v. Fowler, 213 Tenn. 239, 373 S.W.2d 460 (1962), it is said: *516 We are of the opinion the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in the action he took in this instance. Moreover, if it could be said it was error, it was at best harmless. T.C.A. Section 27-117. The second instance relied on by the Court of Criminal Appeals for holding the trial was unfair occurred while Mrs. Shiflet, the mother of respondent, was being cross examined by the District Attorney General. Mrs. Shiflet testified as to respondent's poor health and as to his ability to work. She stated: On cross examination, the following occurred: No further reference was made as to whether he had bootlegged or not. The trial judge sustained the objection. Respondent is in no position to complain. Moreover, if error, it was harmless. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DYER, C.J., HUMPHREYS and McCANLESS, JJ., and WILSON, Special Justice, concur.