Maupin v. State

• Decision Date: 22 October 1927
• Docket Number: A-6005.
• Citation: Maupin v. State, 260 P. 92, 38 Okla. Crim. 241 (Okla. Crim. App. 1927)
• Parties: MAUPIN v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

260 P. 92

38 Okla.Crim. 241

MAUPIN v. STATE.

No. A-6005.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

October 22, 1927

Syllabus by the Court.

No warrant shall be issued to search a private residence occupied as such, unless it or some part of it is used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, place for storage, or is a place of public resort, and, to authorize the issuance of a search warrant for the private residence, the affidavit must show that the residence comes within the exceptions of section 7013,Comp. Stat. 1921.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In prosecution for illegal possession of intoxicating liquor state's evidence obtained by search of private residence on warrant based on affidavit containing none of exceptions for search of residence in Comp. St. 1921, § 7013, should have been suppressed on timely motion.

Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; C. C. Christison, Judge.

W. R Maupin was convicted of having the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.Reversed and remanded.

Wright & Gill, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., for the State.

EDWARDS J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to serve six months in the county jail and pay a fine of $500.

The record discloses that a search warrant was procured and certain officers went to the residence occupied by defendant and his wife and made a search and discovered 3 1/2 pints of whisky and 18 pints of Choctaw beer.The beer was found in the back yard and the whisky on or about the back porch.The officers went to the residence while defendant was away and his wife met them at the door.They advised her they were officers and wanted to search the premises, and she said: "Go ahead."Before going into trial defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence as obtained by an unlawful search.The place searched was the private residence of defendant, occupied as such.Section 7013,Comp. Stat. 1921, reads:

"No warrant shall be issued to search a private residence, occupied as such, unless it, or some part of it, is used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, or place for storage, or unless such residence is a place of public resort."

This statute is plain.No effort was made to comply with its requirements.The...