Daniels v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--13951,A--13951 |
| Citation | 441 P.2d 494 |
| Parties | James Harold DANIELS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The burden of proving the invalidity of the search rests on defendant, and where the casemade does not contain the affidavit nor search warrant, the Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that the search warrant was legal.
2. The burden of proving the invalidity of the execution of a search warrant is on the person attacking its validity, and evidence of acts and circumstances showing the invalidity of the execution of service must be alleged and evidence presented in support thereof in order to enable this Court to review such question.
3. Mere fact that all listed items of stolen property in search warrant were not found in search of residence of defendant, and other stolen property was in plain view and discovered by officer, was not sufficient reason to declare search warrant invalid.
4. Evidence discovered by an officer when he is in a place where he has the legal right to be is admissible to support a charge where such evidence would be involved.
An appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County: Jess I. Miracle, Judge.
James Harold Daniels was convicted of the crime of Grand Larceny, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Carroll Samara, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, James Harold Daniels, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime of Grand Larceny. He was tried by a jury, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at One Year in the penitentiary. From that judgment and sentence he has appealed to this Court.
Defendant's first allegation of error is that the trial court erred in summarily overruling his motion to suppress and allowing tainted evidence to be admitted at the trial. First of all, this Court will take notice of the statement in the attorney general's brief, that the evidence was not admitted into the trial. A check of the record shows this statement to be true, although several witnesses testified as to what was allegedly stolen, and what was discovered in the search of the defendant's home and subsequent search of the co-defendant's home; and identified by them as the articles which they took from the warehouse of Haggard's Furniture, where Daniels was employed.
Defendant's objection to the search warrant must fail, as he did not furnish this Court with a copy or the original search warrant incorporated in the casemade, nor did he present it to the trial court on his motion to suppress. He alleges the defendant was never served with the search warrant, and that the article listed on the warrant was not found; that the defendant has been unable to obtain any copy of the search warrant. However, when the county attorney offered his copy of the search warrant to be presented, the defendant objected to its introduction, complaining that the county attorney did not introduce the original warrant into evidence.
This Court has ruled repatedly on these questions, first, as in the early case of Enochs v. State, 81 Okl.Cr. 111, 161 P.2d 87:
'The burden of proving the invalidity of a search rests on defendant, and, where the case-made does not contain the affidavit nor search warrant, the (Court of Criminal Appeals) will presume that the search warrant was legal.'
And, in Phinney v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 21, 210 P.2d 205:
And, in Edwards v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 37, 239 P.2d 434:
'The burden of proving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Antobenedetto
...People v. Ferguson, 376 Mich. 90, 95--96, 135 N.W.2d 357 (1965); State v. Holt, 415 S.W.2d 761, 764--765 (Mo.1967); Daniels v. State, 441 P.2d 494, 495 (Okl.Cr.App. 1967); Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused--Pre-trial Rights, § 71 at 432 (1972); George and Cederbaums, Criminal Proce......
-
DARITY v. State, F-2007-1192.
...of a search warrant rests on the accused who seeks to suppress the resulting evidence. Daniels v. State, 1967 OK CR 165, ¶¶ 4-6, 441 P.2d 494, 495-96. Although defense counsel presented argument to the Court concerning the alleged failure to serve Appellant with a copy of the warrant, the r......
-
State v. Wallace
...to review such a question. Erickson v. State , 1979 OK CR 67, ¶ 11, 597 P.2d 344, 347 ; Daniels v. State , 1967 OK CR 165, ¶ 4-6, 441 P.2d 494, 495-96. In the absence of a valid challenge, it is to be presumed the affidavit and search warrant are in all respects valid and legal. Van Horn v.......
-
McDonald v. State, A--16492
...whether or not the remarks were invited or provoked by opposing counsel. Potter v. State, Okl.Cr., 473 P.2d 337 (1970); Daniels v. State, Okl.Cr., 441 P.2d 494 (1968); Maghe v. State, Okl.Cr., 429 P.2d 535 (1967); and, Johnson v. State, Okl.Cr., 423 P.2d 886 (1967). In proposition five, app......