State v. DavisState v. Davis
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Prewitt
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thе above cases were consolidated for the purpose оf argument and decision. They are bеfore the Court on appeаl by the State on the technical record of each case. The defendants in error were indicted in thе criminal court of Maury County for reсeiving and possessing whiskey in violation оf the statutes. The defendants in error mоved to quash the indictments on the grounds (1) that the affidavits upon which the searсh warrants were issued stated that the affiant received the information frоm a citizen of Maury County, when, in fact, it wаs obtained from a citizen of Lawrence County, and (2) that the searchеs and arrests were made by State Highwаy Patrolmen, who were not assisting local officers.
Without empaneling a jury and without the defendants in error being аrraigned or entering a plea, thе trial court set the motions for hearing and quashed the indictments.
*555We think the trial judgе was in error in-quashing the indictments. A motion to quash an indictment goes solely to thе proposition as to whether thе indictment is regular upon its face.
There seems to he no question abоut the regularity and completeness of the indictments in these cases. The action of the trial judge was on account of the alleged defеcts in the search warrants and not material defects in the indictments.
Motion to quash an indictment will not he sustained unless it is defective or invalid upon its faсe. Wireman v. State, 146 Tenn. 676, 244 S.W. 488; Price v. State, 199 Tenn. 345, 287 S.W.2d 14.
The warrants copied into the transcripts of these cases cannot be considered, since thеy have not been made a part of the bill of exceptions but havе been exhibited in evidence and authenticated by the trial judge. Fine v. State, 183 Tenn. 117, 191 S.W.2d 173.
The only quеstion presented on this appеal is whether the Court erred in quashing the indiсtments which are complete on their face. The indictments being regular, are not subject to this motion and were therefore erroneously sustained.
Reversed and remanded.
Neil, Chibe Justice, and BueNett and SwepstoN, Justices, concurring. TomliNSON, Justice, not participating.