Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | A-8973. |
| Citation | 54 P.2d 216,58 Okla.Crim. 404 |
| Parties | HOLLAND v. STATE. [a1] |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The burden of proving the invalidity of a search warrant rests on the defendant, and where he files a motion to suppress evidence or objects to the introduction of evidence on the ground the search warrant is not valid he should produce the affidavit and warrant in evidence in support of such motion or objection, or account for the failure to produce and offer other competent evidence to show invalidity. Where he fails to do so, this court will presume the search was legal.
Appeal from District Court, McCurtain County; Geo. R. Childers Judge.
Tom Holland was convicted of larceny of a domestic animal, and he appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
M. F Hudson and M. D. Deck, both of Idabel, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of McCurtain county of larceny of a domestic animal, and was sentenced to serve a term of 3 years in the state penitentiary.
The principal contention made is that the court admitted incompetent evidence obtained by an illegal search of the residence of defendant. The charge is larceny of a hog, and the testimony is that officers, with a search warrant, discovered the hog meat concealed in the residence of defendant. Prior to the trial, defendant's counsel filed an unverified motion to suppress evidence, alleging the search warrant was void for the reason it was issued on an insufficient affidavit. The motion states it has attached thereto a copy of the search warrant and the affidavit for search warrant, and attached to the motion is what purports to be uncertified copies. Defendant's counsel called this motion to the attention of the court, whereupon the following took place:
"By Mr. Dick, after reading the motion to the court: We object to the state using any testimony.
By the Court: Do you want to submit any proof?
By Mr. Dick: It is void on its face.
By the Court: The motion will be overruled.
By Mr. Dick: Alright, give us an exception to the order overruling the motion to suppress."
Neither the affidavit nor the search warrant were produced, and no witness was called to prove these papers were what they purported to be and were the instruments of authority for the search.
This court has held that where a defendant seeks to exclude evidence on the ground it has been obtained by an illegal search warrant, the burden is on him to prove invalidity. In Ford v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 161, 282 P. 370, we held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clasby v. State
... ... evidence. Under the decisions of this court, the burden was ... upon the defendant to sustain the allegations contained in ... the motion to suppress. Allen v. State, 74 Okl.Cr ... 139, 124 P.2d 262; Watson v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 58, ... 117 P.2d 808; Holland v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 404, 54 ... P.2d 216; Ray v. State, 43 Okl.Cr. 1, 276 P. 785; ... Ford v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 161, 282 P. 370; ... Winger v. State, 43 Okl.Cr. 140, 277 P. 947; ... Phillips v. State, 34 Okl.Cr. 52, 244 P. 451 ... Defendant ... did not offer any testimony, ... ...
-
Watson v. State
...By this procedure the burden of proof was upon the defendant to affirmatively show that the search warrant was illegal. Holland v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 404, 54 P.2d 216; Ray v. State, 43 Okl.Cr. 1, 276 P. 785; Ford State, 45 Okl.Cr. 161, 282 P. 370. It will be noted that the affidavit, after d......
-
Sears v. State
... ... and where the defendant raises the question of the illegality ... of the search, the burden is upon him to introduce evidence ... to sustain his motion. Staley v. State, 73 Okl.Cr ... 355, 121 P.2d 324; Watson v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 58, ... 117 P.2d 808; Holland v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 404, 54 ... P.2d 216 ... When ... the objection to the admissibility in evidence of certain ... exhibits first arose, it was in connection with some articles ... taken from the car of the co-defendant, Gaston Gordon. This ... objection was properly ... ...
-
Plumlee v. State
... ... Where the record is silent the proceedings are presumed to be ... regular and in conformity to the law. Clasby v. State, ... Okl.Cr.App., 143 P.2d 430; Allen v. State, 74 ... Okl.Cr. 139, 124 P.2d 262; Watson v. State, 73 ... Okl.Cr. 58, 117 P.2d 808; Holland v. State, 58 ... Okl.Cr. 404, 54 P.2d 216; Ray v. State, 43 Okl. Cr ... 1, 276 P. 785; Ford v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 161, 282 P ... 370; Winger v. State, 43 Okl.Cr. 140, 277 P. 947; ... Phillips v. State, 34 Okl.Cr. 52, 244 P. 451 ... There ... are many other reasons why the ... ...