Pickens v. State

• Decision Date: 29 January 1941
• Docket Number: A-9731.
• Parties: PICKENS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

110 P.2d 319

71 Okla.Crim. 167

PICKENS v. STATE.

No. A-9731.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

January 29, 1941

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a hearing before the trial court upon a motion to suppress evidence obtained by means of a search warrant, where it is contended by the defendant that the address set forth in the search warrant is not the address searched by the officers the court's ruling thereon will not be disturbed, where there is a conflict in the testimony as to whether it is a correct address and there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding.

2. The description of the premises to be searched is sufficient, if it enables 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.

3. The question as to whether two searches of defendant's premises were had on one search warrant should have been presented in the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence; and this question will not be considered by the Criminal Court of Appeals, where raised for the first time in defendant's motion for a new trial.

4. Held, evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, where it is shown that liquor was found in the house over which the defendant had control, that the premises were a place of public resort and had a reputation for being a place where intoxicating liquor was bought and drunk, and there is no proof to the contrary nor explanation.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Chas. W. Conner Judge.

Tiny Pickens was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

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

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

JONES Judge.

The defendant, Tiny Pickens, was by information charged with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor on September 11 1937, tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay fine of $50 and to serve forty-five days in the county jail, from which judgment and sentence she appeals to this court.

The defendant contends that the court erred in overruling her motion to suppress the evidence for the reason that the search warrant was invalid, and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The search warrant was a John Doe warrant describing "a one story frame house located at 1930 N.E. 10th Street in Okla. City, Okla., County, Okla." The defendant insists that the correct address of her home, and the place searched, is 1930 E. Alice Street. The state offered proof that 1930 N.E. 10th was the same place. This court, in passing upon another liquor charge against this same defendant, where this same question was raised, in an opinion by Judge Barefoot, Pickens v. State, 106 P.2d 127, 128, stated: "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 Street and 1930 E. Alice Street would be at the same location. In addition, the officer who procured this search warrant knew the defendant, and knew the address, and secured the search warrant for the purpose of searching the defendant's place. The defendant was present, and had charge of the premises at the time of the search ***."

A search warrant naming...