197 Tenn. 112 | Tenn. | 1954
delivered the opinion of the Court. ■
The plaintiff in error was convicted of promoting gaming and his punishment fixed at a fine of $575 and a jail sentence of nine months.
It is assigned as error that there is no evidence to support the verdict and that the evidence preponderates in favor of the innocence of the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error did not take the stand and offered no evidence. The ease made by the State is as follows: The officers went to the store described in the warrant for the
It is urged by the plaintiff in error that since the evidence shows that he was in the front of the building eating watermelon when the officers came in and was not at any time in the back room where the card game was evidently being played, and that since there is no direct evidence
We think it obvious that the jury was warranted in finding from the above recited evidence, that he was the proprietor of the place and was guilty of aiding and abetting the gaming which evidently had been going on. This assignment is overruled.
The second assignment goes to the validity of the search warrant with reference to its description, which was as follows :
“Being a one-story frame store building known as the Quillen and Owens store on IT. S. Highway 11-W, in old Kingsport located in the 12th Civil District, Sullivan County, Tennessee.”
The criticism of this description is that the exterior appearance of the building to be searched is not described with sufficient detail, and that its street number is not given. As to this latter insistence, there is no proof that the store had a number on it.
The rule is that a description is sufficient if it enables the officer to locate with reasonable certainty the place to be searched. O’Brien v. State, 158 Tenn. 100, 14 S. W. (2d) 51; Webb v. State, 173 Tenn. 518, 121 S. W. (2d) 550.
There is no ambiguity about this description because there is no proof that there is any other building in this area answering the description as Quillen and Owens store in the location stated in the warrant.
In this connection, see the case of Robinette v. State, Loudon Criminal, this day decided. This assignment is, therefore; overruled.
The last assignment insists that the verdict was a quotient of gambling verdict in that one of the jurors tes
This was not a quotient verdict under our Tennessee cases. The rule is that in order to vitiate the verdict there must be an agreement, express or implied, before the calculation is made that the jurors would be bound by that result. Gildewe v. State, 83 Tenn, 133; Crabtree v. State, 35 Tenn. 302; Joyce v. State, 66 Tenn. 273; Williams v. State, 83 Tenn. 129. It is apparent, therefore, that this verdict was not a quotient verdict, and the assignment is overruled.
It is further suggested in the brief that the punishment is out of all proportion to the crime, and that the case should be reversed and remanded. Since plaintiff in error requested that the jury fix punishment, Code Sec. 11760.1 we have no authority to reduce it. Thompson v. State, 192 Tenn. 298, 241 S. W. (2d) 404.
The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed with costs.