Beacham v. State, A-12179

• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: JONES
• Citation: Beacham v. State, 289 P.2d 397 (Okla. Crim. App. 1955)
• Decision Date: 19 October 1955
• Docket Number: No. A-12179,A-12179
• Parties: Ardena BEACHAM, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

Page 397

289 P.2d 397

Ardena BEACHAM, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12179.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 19, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The constitutional provision guaranteeing one immunity from unlawful search and seizure is personal, and one accused will not be heard to object that the search of the property or premises of some third person is a violation of his constitutional rights.

2. The theory of principal and agent as applied in civil cases does not apply in criminal cases as it is provided by statute that all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet in its commission shall be prosecuted as principals. 21 O.S.1951 § 172 3. Requested instruction that jury should acquit if it found defendant was merely acting as agent for B, the alleged true owner of contraband, was properly refused.

Appeal from the County Court of Caddo County; Dewey E. Hodges, Judge.

Ardena Beacham was convicted in the County Court of Caddo County for the crime of unlawful possession of whiskey, and was sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $150. Affirmed.

W. H. Cooper, Anadarko, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

The defendant, Ardena Beacham, was charged by an information filed in the County Court of Caddo County with the unlawful possession of whiskey, was tried, found guilty by verdict of the jury who left the punishment to be fixed by the trial court; thereafter the defendant was sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $150 and has appealed.

Two assignments of error are presented on the appeal: 1. The court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidence. 2. The court erred in refusing to give defendant's requested instruction. The motion to suppress evidence was based upon the contention of the accused 'that the place searched was the home of Lucille Bumgarner and that the intoxicants found by reason of said search and seizure did not belong to the defendant, and that she had no right, title or interest in and to said intoxicants; that the home belonged to Lucille Bumgarner, all household good and fixtures belonged to the said Lucille Bumgarner, and said defendant had no right, title or interest therein.'

It is established law in a long line of decisions that the right to object to a search and seizure is personal to the owner of the property sought to be searched and one may not object to the search of property over which he has no right, title or interest or claim of interest. Stephens v. State, Okl.Cr., 285 P.2d 467; Kizer v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 92, 249 P.2d 132.

The defendant testified at the trial that her mother's name was Lucille Bumgarner and that the mother became ill while the accused was living near the town of Sulphur and that accused came to her mother's home in Anadarko to care for her mother; that her mother has been in the whiskey business for over 20 years. That while her mo...