Pickens v. State

• Decision Date: 25 September 1940
• Docket Number: A-9703.
• Citation: 106 P.2d 127,70 Okla.Crim. 301
• Parties: PICKENS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

106 P.2d 127

70 Okla.Crim. 301

PICKENS v. STATE.

No. A-9703.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

September 25, 1940

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress the evidence procured under the search warrant issued in this case.

2. A search warrant which particularly describes the place to be searched, and the officers knew the defendant and where she lived by reason of previous searches, will not be set aside.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Carl Traub Judge.

Anna (Tiny) Pickens was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Mathers & Mathers, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT Judge.

The defendant Anna (Tiny) Pickens was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and sentenced to pay a fine of $75 and serve a term of forty-five days in the county jail, and has appealed.

This charge grew out of a search of the defendant's home and garage at 1930 N.E. 10th Street in Oklahoma City on the 29th day of June, 1938. The officers found nine pints of tax paid whiskey secreted under a trapdoor in the garage of defendant. At the time the officers entered the premises, two men were sitting at a table and were being served with whiskey in glasses by defendant, and two other persons were in the kitchen; and glasses were on the table, which the officers testified smelled of whiskey, also, chipped ice, some lemons and bottles of mix. A pint bottle of whiskey about one-half full was found on a shelf in the kitchen. Conversations were testified to by the officers, which clearly demonstrated that liquor was being sold by the drink on the premises.

Defendant's place had been searched upon other occasions by the officers and they testified that the place had a bad reputation as a place where intoxicating liquor was sold.

The officers had warrants for the arrest of two parties who were sons-in-law of the defendant and who resided at the premises either at the time the search was made or shortly prior thereto.

For reversal of this case, it is contended that the court erred in failing to sustain a motion to quash the search warrant issued herein, it being contended that the defendant lived at 1930 E. Alice Street and not at 1930 N.E. 10th Street. Counsel in his brief states that these two addresses are a block apart; but the evidence in the record does not substantiate this statement. It shows that Alice Street and N.E. 10th Street in the place where the search occurred are one and the same, and that 1930 N.E. 10th St...