Nation v. State

Decision Date28 October 1970
Docket NumberNo. A--15271,A--15271
Citation478 P.2d 974
PartiesLouis J. NATION, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

1. Constitutional provision guaranteeing one immunity from unlawful search and seizure is personal, and one accused will not be heard to object that the search of the property or premises of some third person is a violation of his constitutional rights.

2. Court will take strongest view of corroborating testimony that testimony warrants before guilty verdict will be set aside.

3. There is failure to corroborate accomplice testimony only if there is no evidence legitimately having that effect.

4. If the accomplice is corroborated as to one material fact, or facts, by independent evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, the jury may from that infer that he speaks the truth as to all.

5. Both corpus delicti and venue may be proven by circumstantial evidence, although it is unnecessary that the venue be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. It is reversible error to give an instruction as to 'good time credits' in a one-stage proceeding.

Appeal from District Court, Pottawatomie County; J. Knox Byrum, Judge.

Louis J. Nation was convicted of the crime of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property; was sentenced to serve three years in the state penitentiary and pay a fine of $500.00, and appeals. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Mac Oyler, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Max A. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Judge:

Louis J. Nation, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Pottawatomie County with the crime of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property; his punishment was fixed at three years imprisonment and a fine of $500.00, and he appeals.

Briefly stated, the evidence at the trial revealed that various law enforcement officers went to a trailer occupied by one Jack Stowers, located on a farm in Pottawatomie County, on February 15, 1968. Sheriff Herb Stroud presented a search warrant to Stowers, who stated they didn't need the warrant and invited them into the trailer. Stowers showed the officers where a .357 Blackhawk Pistol was kept in a drawer of a chest.

Jack McQuery testified that he purchased four guns from the defendant just prior to Christmas of 1967. Billy Kelly, the manager of a T.G. & Y. Store in Oklahoma City, identified the .357 pistol and three of the guns purchased by McQuery as being stolen from his store on November 14, 1967.

Jack Stowers, an admitted felon, testified that he invited the officers into his trailer, showed them the location of the pistol and that the defendant had brought the pistol and other guns to the trailer and stated that he had bought the guns from someone in Oklahoma City and that they had been taken in a burglary; that the defendant picked up the guns at various times, with the exception of the pistol, as he could find buyers.

The defendant's first proposition contends that the trial court erred in overruling his Motion to Suppress. The contention that the search warrant was illegal is well taken. The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued does not meet the requirements set forth by this Court or the United States Supreme Court in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637.

The evidence indicated, however, that the defendant had no possessory interest in the trailer, nor was he present at the time of the search. This Court has repeatedly held:

'Constitutional provision guaranteeing one immunity from unlawful search and seizure is personal, and one accused will not be heard to object that the search of the property or premises of some third person is a violation of his constitutional rights.'

See Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 502.

We have examined the United States Supreme Court cases cited by the defendant and find that they are distinguishable from the facts in this case. Therefore, we hold that this assignment of error is without merit.

The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in overruling his Demurrer to the evidence, as there was no corroboration of the accomplice, proof of venue or corpus delicti. Clearly,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Stafford v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 7, 1983
    ...connect the defendant to the crime, it may be inferred by the trier of fact that the rest of his testimony is also true. Nation v. State, 478 P.2d 974 (Okl.Cr.1970).We therefore believe the trial court was justified in permitting Verna to testify that Harold was present during certain conve......
  • Caskey v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 12, 1972
    ...sets were found in the apartment within fourteen hours from the time of the breaking and entering. In the recent case of Nation v. State, Okl.Cr., 478 P.2d 974, we 'It is the law in this state that an accomplice's testimony need not be corroborated as to every material point. If the accompl......
  • Roberts v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 29, 1977
    ...not be corroborated as to all material aspects. In Rose v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 1368 (1973), this Court quoting from Nation v. State, Okl.Cr., 478 P.2d 974 (1971), " 'It is the law in this state that an accomplice's testimony need not be corroborated as to every material point. If the a......
  • Rose v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 27, 1973
    ...D--9 Caterpillar in her barn. In Richardson v. State, Okl.Cr., 491 P.2d 364 (1971), we cited with approval the case of Nation v. State, Okl.Cr., 478 P.2d 974 (1970) wherein we 'It is the law in this state that an accomplice's testimony need not be corroborated as to every material point. If......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT