McGaha v. State

Counsel

E.K. Windham, of Boonville, for appellant. As shown by the agreed statement of facts, A.S. Green, sheriff of Prentiss county, on April 30, 1935, procured a search warrant directing a search of "a Chevrolet coach car, occupied by Robert McGaha," and in executing this warrant he searched "a four-door sedan occupied by Robert McGaha." Appellant contends that the search warrant authorized the search of a car entirely different to the one searched, and that, therefore, the search was illegal and the evidence obtained as a result of the search was inadmissible. Appellant relies on the holding of this court in the case of Vaughn v. State, 101 So. 439, for a reversal of this cause. In the Vaughn case, the court said: "It was admitted in the evidence that the sheriff stopped the car, and it is undisputed that the automobile searched was not the one described in the warrant. This court has held that before the evidence is admissible there must be a valid search warrant, or there must be a voluntary consent to the search. It has also been held that the warrant must describe the property to be searched with particularity." Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211 , 90 So. 545; Owens v. State, 133 Miss. 753 , 98 So. 235; Butler v. State, 129 Miss. 778 , 93 So. 3; State v. Patterson, 130 Miss. 680 , 95 So. 96; Miller v. State, 129 Miss. 774 , 93 So. 2; Strangi v. State, 98 So. 340; Taylor v. State, 98 So. 459. Webb M. Mize, Assistant Attorney General, for the state. The case of Holston v. State, 161 Miss. 654 , 137 So. 501 , is decisive of the question here. In the Holston case the affidavit and search warrant gave the wrong number of the house to be searched, but stated that the house was occupied by a named person. The court held that the description and search warrant in that case was sufficient and that the description of the thing to be searched was not required to be as technical and accurate as a description in a deed of conveyance. We contend that, under this case, the search in the instant case was valid and evidence introduced under the search was sufficient. It was agreed that the sheriff knew the defendant and was accustomed to seeing him drive a certain car. The fact that he saw defendant in a Chevrolet car is sufficient to make the evidence admissible. Forshee v. State, 152 Miss. 566 , 120 So. 462 ; Mooney v. State, 160 Miss. 701 , 135 So. 200 ; Cangelosi v. State, 172 Miss. 252 , 159 So. 846 .