Cummings v. State

• Decision Date: 17 November 1925
• Docket Number: A-5292.
• Citation: 240 P. 1078,32 Okla.Crim. 274
• Parties: CUMMINGS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

240 P. 1078

32 Okla.Crim. 274

CUMMINGS v. STATE.

No. A-5292.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

November 17, 1925

Syllabus by the Court.

Constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against compelling one to be a witness against himself secure the individual in his person, his home, and his property from invasion by officers executing illegal and void search warrants.

Affidavit for search warrant, describing the place to be searched as a certain section of land, and without naming the owner, is insufficient to furnish the particular description of the place to be searched, where it appeared that the land so designated was owned and occupied by several persons, so that it was in fact several places.

Refusal to permit the defendant to ask jurors on voir dire examination if they were members of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, or what is known as the Invisible Empire, for the purpose of laying a foundation for peremptory challenge held error.

Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; John P. Boyd, Judge.

Gerald Cummings, convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, appeals. Reversed and remanded, with direction.

Ed Crossland, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for the State.

DOYLE J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had in the county court of Tulsa county in which the defendant, Gerald Cummings, was found guilty of the offense of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same. The jury fixed the punishment at a fine of $300 and confinement in the county jail for 60 days.

A number of errors are assigned; the first is as follows Refusal of the trial court to permit defendant to examine jurors on their voir dire as a basis for an intelligent exercise of his peremptory challenges.

The record shows that the court refused to permit the following question to be asked of each juror on his voir dire:

"Are you a member of what is known as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, or what is known as the Invisible Empire?"

In Menefee v. State, 236 P. 439, we held that-

"Refusal to permit jurors to answer the defendant's question whether they belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, for the purpose of laying a foundation for peremptory challenge of jurors, held reversible error."

In the opinion it is said:

"The Constitution guarantees to every defendant in a criminal case a fair trial by an impartial jury. In order to determine whether the person called as a juror possesses the necessary qualifications, whether he has prejudged the case, whether his mind is free from prejudice or bias, the defendant has the right to ask him questions, the answer to which may tend to show that he may be challenged for cause or disclose a state of facts upon which the defendant may see proper to reject such juror peremptorily."

Upon the record in this case we are not called upon to decide whether an affirmative answer to the question propounded to the jury would have been grounds for challenge for cause. The questions were asked with a view of ascertaining facts upon which to base a peremptory challenge, and for this purpose they were proper, and should have been answered.

The evidence shows that on the date alleged, under authority of a search warrant, the officers visited the defendant's home, two or three miles northeast of the town of Bixby, and searched the premises.

When the case was called for trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony being given by the witness J.

A Sewell, W. E. Pinion, and J. F. Donaldson, whose names are indorsed on the information, for the reason that the search and seizure was made...