Bowman v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Keys v. State

    283 So. 2d 919 (Miss. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    If he was not then under arrest, the officers had no right to search his person, and, the evidence thereby obtained was inadmissible; but any error that may have been committed in the admission of this evidence cannot be here complained of by the appellant, for he testified in his own behalf and admitted that he had the bottle of whisky then in his possession. Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112, 93 So. 577, 24 A.L.R. 1429; State v. Watson, 133 Miss. 796, 98 So. 241; Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176." 158 Miss. at 274, 130 So. at 286.

  2. Barnard v. State

    155 Miss. 390 (Miss. 1929)   Cited 15 times

    Accused cannot complain regarding admission of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure where he testified to facts revealed by such evidence. Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195. Incompetent evidence of the state where facts are admitted in testimony by the accused is not error.

  3. Daniels v. State

    312 So. 2d 706 (Miss. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    Gann v. State, 234 So.2d 627 (Miss. 1970); Goodman v. State, 158 Miss. 269, 130 So. 285 (1930); and Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176 (1928). Cf. Keys v. State, 283 So.2d 919 (Miss.

  4. Slyter v. State

    246 Miss. 402 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 28 times

    The Court did not err in admitting into evidence the clothing of appellant. Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176; Fisher v. State, 150 Miss. 206, 116 So. 746; Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147; Gipson v. State, 162 Miss. 480, 139 So. 868; Grimsley v. State, 212 Miss. 229, 54 So.2d 277; Harris v. State, 209 Miss. 141, 46 So.2d 91; Mills v. State, 231 Miss. 687, 97 So.2d 517; Morris v. State, 148 Miss. 680, 114 So. 750; Pickle v. State, 172 Miss. 563, 160 So. 909; Prine v. State, 158 Miss. 435, 130 So. 687; Smith v. State, 217 Miss. 123, 63 So.2d 557. ARRINGTON, J.

  5. Cochran v. State

    191 Miss. 273 (Miss. 1941)   Cited 18 times
    In Cochran v. State, 191 Miss. 273, 2 So.2d 822 (1941), Cochran was arrested for possession of beer and slot machines inside a dance hall. Cochran, 2 So.2d at 822.

    On the other hand, however, we think that if there were any error in admitting this evidence of what was found following appellant's arrest, such error was cured when the appellant's own witness went upon the witness stand and told the jury that appellant was in possession of this whiskey under the circumstances testified about by the officers. Clayton v. State (Miss.), 131 So. 648; Millette v. State, 167 Miss. 172, 148 So. 728; Goodman v. State, 158 Miss. 269, 130 So. 285; Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176; Smith v. State, 166 Miss. 893, 144 So. 471; Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112, 93 So. 377; McPherson v. State, 124 Miss. 361, 86 So. 854. Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

  6. Smith v. State

    187 Miss. 96 (Miss. 1939)   Cited 17 times

    We think all of this argument by appellant is out of place on this appeal because the defendant, Earl Smith, went upon the witness stand and testified with reference to the search and admitted that the officers found everything they said they did and admitted that they found the liquor where they said they did. Under such circumstances appellant cannot complain regarding the admission of evidence obtained by this search, even though the search were unlawful, or made under a void warrant. Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176; Smith v. State, 166 Miss. 893, 144 So. 471; Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112, 93 So. 377; Rawls v. State, 152 Miss. 885, 120 So. 211; Prine v. State, 158 Miss. 435, 130 So. 687; Goodman v. State, 158 Miss. 269, 130 So. 285. Appellant also argues that the court should have entered a mistrial because of the district attorney's alleged improper argument in which it was said that he commented upon the failure of the defendant to call one as a witness who was equally accessible to the state.

  7. Lynchard v. State

    184 So. 805 (Miss. 1938)   Cited 2 times

    Had the trial on its merits been under way and a preliminary inquiry were had to determine the competency of this evidence, this testimony of the defendant in which he admitted the possession of the liquor would have brought the case within the well established rule that where the defendant testifies and admits facts revealed by an unlawful search, he cannot complain of evidence produced by the state which came as the result of such unlawful search. Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176; Smith v. State, 166 Miss. 893, 144 So. 471; Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112; Clayton v. State, 131 So. 648; Millette v. State, 167 Miss. 172, 148 So. 788; Goodman v. State, 158 Miss. 269, 130 So. 285; Prine v. State, 158 Miss. 435, 130 So. 687. However, it appears to the writer that this same rule should apply where the competency of the evidence is inquired into in advance of the trial.

  8. Millette v. State

    167 Miss. 172 (Miss. 1933)   Cited 36 times

    Therefore, so far as the sack of narcotics is concerned, error, if any, in admitting testimony with reference to it has been rendered harmless by this testimony of the defendant's witness, and it is immaterial whether they had a search warrant, or if they had one whether it was valid or not. Goodman v. State, 130 So. 285; Prine v. State, 130 So. 687; Rawls v. State, 120 So. 211; Bowman v. State, 119 So. 176; Rucker v. State, 118 So. 716; Weatherford v. State, 143 So. 863. Information to justify a search without a warrant must either identify the car to be searched or the occupants of the car.

  9. Peters v. State

    158 Miss. 530 (Miss. 1930)   Cited 12 times

    There being no objection to the introduction of the evidence and the defendant having taken the stand and admitted the possession of each of the articles described, it was immaterial whether a valid search warrant had been secured. Brown v. State, 119 So. 176, 152 Miss. 195; Rawls v. State, 120 So. 211, 152 Miss. 885. Argued orally by M.U. Mounger, for appellant, and by Forrest B. Jackson, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.

  10. Prine v. State

    158 Miss. 435 (Miss. 1930)   Cited 11 times

    Second, the appellant himself admitted the possession of each and all the articles testified about by the officers as a result of the search warrant; therefore, it is immaterial whether the search warrant was valid or void. See Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112, 93 So. 577, 24 A.L.R. 1429; State v. Watson, 133 Miss. 796, 98 So. 241; Hollis v. State, 149 Miss. 508, 115 So. 593; Bowman v. State, 152 Miss. 195, 119 So. 176. Third, as to the instructions to the effect that the appellant had a right to possess Jamaica ginger and likewise had a right to possess homemade wine, we can only say that as an abstract proposition the instructions were correct, but were not applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that appellant had in his possession a mixture composed of Jamaica ginger and wine.