Mitchell v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | A-6093. |
| Citation | 259 P. 661,38 Okla.Crim. 167 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the evidence reasonably supports the verdict, although conflicting, the judgment rendered thereon will not be reversed by this court for insufficiency.
Where the commission of an offense is suspected, a search of woodlands, pastures, or fields not within the curtilage or close proximity of a dwelling house is not unreasonable, and a search warrant is not necessary.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In prosecution for unlawful possession of still, evidence held to support conviction.
Appeal from County Court, Okfuskee County; William L. Seawell Judge.
Jim Mitchell was convicted of having the unlawful possession of a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
D. E Ashmore and A. W. Anderson, both of Henryetta, for plaintiff in error.
Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Okfuskee county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of a still, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to serve a term of 90 days in the county jail.
The record discloses that defendant had leased for agricultural purposes, and was in possession of, certain premises upon which a still in operation was found. Defendant testified that he subleased the land on which the still was found to one Middleton. At the time the still was found, both defendant and Middleton were at it, apparently participating in its operation. Defendant and Middleton were jointly charged, but a severance had been taken. Middleton sought to take all the responsibility, and testified that the still was his property. The jury evidently did not believe the testimony of defendant and Middleton that Middleton alone was in possession of the still. The facts and circumstances in evidence were sufficient that the jury might reasonably and logically find the defendant guilty.
Complaint is also made that the officers made an unlawful search. No search warrant was necessary for the investigation that led to the finding of the still. It was in a brushy woods pasture, an unfrequented place, one-quarter to one-half of a mile from the residence. Merck v. State (Okl. Cr App.) 249 P. 163; Penney v. State (Okl. Cr App.) 249 P. 167. The officers testified they looked into defendant's barn and to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial