Reynolds v. State
| Decision Date | 28 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | A-7426. |
| Citation | 289 P. 782,48 Okla.Crim. 131 |
| Parties | REYNOLDS v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where service of a search warrant is not made within the time provided by section 7009, C. O. S. 1921, the service is void and evidence secured thereunder is inadmissible.
The record in this case shows that the writ was received by the officer August 4, 1928, and was not served until August 11 1928; therefore the service of the search warrant was void for the reason that it was not served within the time provided by the statute.
Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; John Manning, Judge.
Mrs Howard Reynolds was convicted of possessing beer, and she appeals.
Reversed.
P. G. Fullerton, of Lawton, for plaintiff in error.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted upon a charge of having under her control certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, 48 pints of beer, with intent to violate the prohibition laws of the state of Oklahoma, by bartering, selling, giving away, or otherwise disposing of the same, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and be imprisoned in the county jail for sixty days. From which judgment the defendant by petition in error and case-made has appealed to this court.
The testimony on behalf of the state tends to show that a search warrant was secured by S. A. Logan, a constable, who in company with Mr. Thoroughman and others went to the home of Howard Reynolds, the husband of the defendant; Howard Reynolds was away from home at the time, and also the defendant Mrs. Howard Reynolds. The officer testified he knocked at the door and a small boy opened the door and he went in; Mrs. Littlepage, the mother of the defendant, was in the house and some one else; they searched the home and found several bottles of home-brew.
Upon the hearing of the motion to suppress the evidence, the return of the officer was introduced, showing as follows:
The testimony further shows that shortly after the officers began making the search, the defendant, Mrs. Howard Reynolds, came home, and she was arrested, charged with the possession of the beer, as shown by the proof of the state to be home-brew.
Before calling the case for trial the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence secured, for the reason that the evidence that would be offered by the state was secured by an unlawful search of her premises; that no service of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial