Mitchell v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | A-6386. [a1] |
| Citation | 277 P. 260,43 Okla.Crim. 63 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The description of the premises to be searched is sufficient, if it enable the officers executing the search warrant to locate the premises to be searched without the aid of any other information save that contained in the search warrant.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Affidavit for search warrant, describing premises to be searched as "place where numerous persons congregate for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor," held sufficient to describe premises as place of public resort, as required by Comp. St. 1921, § 7013, though premises were a private residence.
Instruction that keeping in excess of one quart of whisky, or in any manner permitting any other person to keep in or about his place of business or residence or place of amusement or clubroom such intoxicating liquor, is prima facie evidence of intent to barter, sell, or give it away contrary to law held properly given.
Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; C. C. Christison, Judge.
Sam Mitchell was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Sam S Gill, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
J. K. Wright, Co. Atty., and L. W. Harrod, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Oklahoma City, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having possession of whisky with intent to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish the same, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $350 and be confined in the county jail for six months. Motion for new trial was filed, overruled, and exceptions saved, and the cause appealed to this court.
The defendant assigns numerous grounds of error, but groups them under two propositions; first the search warrant was void, and the evidence secured thereby inadmissible. The affidavit for the search warrant is sworn to positively, and sets out facts sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant.
The defendant argues first that the description of the premises to be searched is insufficient. The property is described in the affidavit for the search warrant as follows: "A one story frame house, with shed kitchen on west side, said house being painted a slate color trimmed in green, said house being the first house south of the Rock Island tracks on the west side of Bath street, and outbuildings and premises all being in Oklahoma County and State." It appears from the evidence in this case that this was the only house of any description south of the Rock Island tracks on the west side of what would have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial