From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. State

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Feb 9, 1970
231 So. 2d 777 (Miss. 1970)

Opinion

No. 45686.

February 9, 1970

Appeal from the Circuit Court, DeSoto County, Nat G. Troutt, Special Judge.

Garner, Whitten, May Garner, Hernando, Arthur Huggins, Southaven, for appellant.

A.F. Summer, Atty Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Velia Ann Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for appellee.


Billy Gray Wright, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County of the illegal possession of gambling devices, in violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2192 (1956).

This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in Presley v. State, 229 So.2d 830, decided December 22, 1969. It was there held that an agent of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of the State Tax Commission does not have the authority to serve a search warrant issued for the purpose of making a search for illegal gambling equipment. Introduction of the evidence in question was objected to by defendant's counsel on the ground of an illegal search and seizure, but not on the particular basis of the power of an ABC agent. However, we think that under the "plain error" rule and in the interest of equal administration of justice this Court should apply the holding in Presley v. State to the instant case, where the evidence was in fact objected to on the ground of an illegal search.

Reversed and appellant discharged.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY, and INZER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wright v. State

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Feb 9, 1970
231 So. 2d 777 (Miss. 1970)
Case details for

Wright v. State

Case Details

Full title:Billy Gray WRIGHT v. STATE of Mississippi

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Date published: Feb 9, 1970

Citations

231 So. 2d 777 (Miss. 1970)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. State

The primary purpose of the plain error rule is to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Bell v. State,…

Boring v. State

" Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 27-28, 143 So. 479, 482 (1932). The appellant recognized the foregoing…