Barnett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Barnett v. State

1930 OK CR 1, 283 P. 1023, 45 Okla. Crim. 447, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 4, 1930

DocketNo. A-7002.

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 1 (Barnett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. State, 1930 OK CR 1, 283 P. 1023, 45 Okla. Crim. 447, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 510 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Garfield county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and their punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and confinement in the county jail for 6 months for each of them. The defendants were jointly charged, tried, and convicted.

The defendants complain, first, that the court erred in overruling their motion to suppress the evidence taken *448 under the search- warrant. The affidavit filed in the case contains all the necessary allegations of law and fact to authorize the issuance of the search warrant. The motion to suppress the evidence being without merit, the same was properly overruled.

The defendants next contend that the evidence wasi insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The evidence of the state, in substance, was that the defendant Addie Barnett was in the room where the liquor was 'found and was one of the proprietors of the place; that the defendant Hughes had in his hand a stew kettle containing about a gallon of whisky; that, on seeing the officers, he started to dump the whisky and did succeed in dumping all of it but about a pint. Whisky glasses were found in the room and jugs and bottles smelling of liquor and several intoxicated people in the room.

This evidence was sufficient to support the charge of possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the liquor laws of the state. The defendants complain of other errors, hut they are without merit.

For the reasons stated, the cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Garfield county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and their punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and confinement in the county jail for 6 months for each of them. The defendants were jointly charged, tried, and convicted.

The defendants complain, first, that the court erred in overruling their motion to suppress the evidence taken *448 under the search- warrant. The affidavit filed in the case contains all the necessary allegations of law and fact to authorize the issuance of the search warrant. The motion to suppress the evidence being without merit, the same was properly overruled.

The defendants next contend that the evidence wasi insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The evidence of the state, in substance, was that the defendant Addie Barnett was in the room where the liquor was 'found and was one of the proprietors of the place; that the defendant Hughes had in his hand a stew kettle containing about a gallon of whisky; that, on seeing the officers, he started to dump the whisky and did succeed in dumping all of it but about a pint. Whisky glasses were found in the room and jugs and bottles smelling of liquor and several intoxicated people in the room.

This evidence was sufficient to support the charge of possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the liquor laws of the state. The defendants complain of other errors, hut they are without merit.

For the reasons stated, the cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK CR 1, 283 P. 1023, 45 Okla. Crim. 447, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.