Court Opinion

ID: 9868503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:38:28.98448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.083874
License: Public Domain

Ox Petition to Rehear.
The State has presented a petition to Rehear in this cause on the ground that the opinion of the Court is in conflict with the cases of Hood v. State, 148 Tenn. 265, 255 S. W. 51, and Goodwin v. State, 148 Tenn. 682, 257 S. W. 79, stating that in each of these cases it was held that where the person accused furbished admissible evidence of his possession of the contraband under investigation, the Court would treat the question of the validity of the search as being immaterial since there had been furnished competent admissible evidence to the same effect as that occasioned by such search.
*148The Court is of opinion that the situation presented in the cases cited is not comparable to the situation presented in the instant case. In the case of Hood v. State, supra, there was a “close question” as to whether or not the suspicious circumstances existing in that case justified a search without a search warrant. The Court, however, disregarded that question in view of the' circumstances of the case. The Court said:
“However, it appears that the defendant took the stand and admitted that he had in his pocket at the time of his arrest ‘part of a pint of liquor’ which had been given him shortly before by one of his companions.
“In a case appealed from Shelby County . . .' (Posie Lowry v. State, . . .), wherein it appears that the defendant was unlawfully searched . . . .and a pistol found in his pocket, this court held that, while the action of the officers in making the search was unlawful, the defendant having taken the stand and admitted his guilt, thus furnishing competent evidence thereof, the conviction was thereby sustained. ’ ’
In the case of Goodwin v. State, supra, the plaintiff simulated drunkenness, staggering about and otherwise conducting himself as a drunken person. He was arrested by an officer and searched. On' the search a loaded pistol was found on,, his person. In commenting upon the legality of the search, the Court said [148 Tenn. 682, 257 S. W. 80]:
“Public drunkenness is a public offense, and the objection for the want of a warrant was not well taken.
“The state having made out its case and rested, defendant was placed upon the stand following an announcement by his counsel that he would be introduced for the purpose only of attempting to show that the arrest ánd subsequent search were illegal. He testified on *149direct examination that he was not drunk. However, he did not in any way seek to controvert the testimony of the officer that his condnct was suspicions, and such as naturally to create the impression that he was intoxicated, thus affording abundantly reasonable grounds for his arrest. Although a man he in fact sober, if he so conducts himself in public as to justify the impression that he is drunk, whether he does so purposely or otherwise, he subjects himself to arrest, and the arrest is lawful.
“It is insisted that the trial judge erred in permitting cross-examination of the defendant by the state, and thus obtained from him confirmation of his guilt. This was not reversible error, since the case had been conclusively made out by the state; subject to rebuttal proof, and if the testimony on cross-examination had' been wholly excluded, defendant’s conviction of pistol carrying must have followed. The pistol carrying was not denied, and the fact of actual drunkenness was not the material issue.”
. These cases go on further to hold that where the evidence obtained by a search warrant is found to be illegal, the conviction will not be set aside when there is independent evidence elicited, either from the defendant or elsewhere, which in itself is sufficient to justify the conviction.
In the instant ease the only proof against the defendant was the finding of contraband liquor on his premises. This evidence was illegally obtained. Thus far there was no competent evidence against him. Then the defendant and his wife both testified that the liquor did not belong to the husband and the husband denied any knowledge of it whatsoever. Again there was a total lack of evidence as to the defendant’s guilt. Under *150these circumstances the defendant was improperly convicted.
In Byrd v. State, 161 Tenn. 306, 30 S. W. (2d) 273, the Court did not pass upon the point in question in this case. There the Court held that the wife was under coercion on the part of officers in permitting a search. Here the wife voluntarily invited the search and exhibited the contraband to the officers, so that an entirely different question is presented.
The attention of the Court is called to the holdings to the effect that the admission of incompetent evidence will not constitute reversible error when competent evidence to the same effect is admitted. In the instant case no competent evidence whatever against this defendant has been introduced.
We think there is no conflict between the holding of the Court in the instant case and its holding in the eases referred to by State’s counsel.
Accordingly, petition to rehear is denied.