Byrd v. State, A-11089
| Decision Date | 29 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11089,A-11089 |
| Parties | BYRD v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The burden of proof is upon one alleging the invalidity of the search to introduce evidence to show that the search was illegal.
2. In a prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, the state after making a proper showing that the home of the accused was a place of public resort, may then introduce evidence of the general reputation of the home of accused as a place where intoxicating liquors are sold. This evidence is admissible as an aid in determining the intent with which the liquors are possessed.
3. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Wimbish & Wimbish, Ada, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The defendant, Annie Byrd, was charged in the County Court of Pontotoc County, with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve thirty days in the county jail, and pay a fine of $50.00 and costs, and has appealed.
The proof of the state showed that four officers of Pontotoc County, including the Chief of Police of the City of Ada, armed with a search warrant, went to the premises occupied by the defendant, and after a search found eighteen pint bottles of whiskey in a wardrobe closet with a false bottom. No evidence was offered on behalf of defendant.
It is first contended that the search was in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. Before the commencement of the trial, a motion to suppress the evidence because of the alleged illegality of the search was filed by counsel for defendant. The record does not disclose that any evidence was introduced in support of the motion, but merely shows that it was overruled with an exception allowed to the defendant.
In the brief of defendant it is stated: 'There was no proof that the affidavit to obtain the search warrant was sufficient under the law; there was no proof as to what officer, if any, the warrant was directed; no proof that any copy of said search warrant was ever served on defendant, and therefore the search was unlawful.'
The burden is upon one alleging the invalidity of a search to introduce evidence to show that the search was invalid. Staley v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 355, 121 P.2d 324.
The officers testified that they had a search warrant. However, the search warrant was never introduced in evidence. Neither was the affidavit for the search warrant introduced in evidence. If these instruments were legally insufficient, counsel for defendant should have introduced them as evidence in support of his motion as the burden was upon defendant to sustain the allegations of the motion to suppress evidence. There is an entire absence of evidence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State
...warrant, or the evidence taken at the hearing on the motion to suppress. Passmore v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 391, 198 P.2d 439; Byrd v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 129, 216 P.2d 596. The case therefore will be determined on its Here the record is completely uninformative by statement or otherwise as to wha......
-
Wilson v. State, A-11911
...showing the illegality of the search. Littke v. State, Okl.Cr., 258 P.2d 211; Kelso v. State, Okl.Cr., 260 P.2d 864; Byrd v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 129, 216 P.2d 596. In Enochs v. State, 81 Okl.Cr. 111, 161 P.2d 87, 88, it was 'The burden of proving the invalidity of a search rests on the defend......
-
Slaton v. State, A-11705
...warrant, or the evidence taken at the hearing on the motion to suppress. Passmore v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 391, 198 P.2d 439; Byrd v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 129, 216 P.2d 596. The case therefore will be determined on its The facts herein are briefly as follows. The defendant's home was located east ......
- Carter v. State, A-11175