Bynum v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Bynum v. State

1934 OK CR 86, 33 P.2d 1118, 56 Okla. Crim. 83, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 22, 1934

DocketNo. A-8704.

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK CR 86 (Bynum 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

Bynum v. State, 1934 OK CR 86, 33 P.2d 1118, 56 Okla. Crim. 83, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25 (Okla. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Harmon county of the unlawful possession of a still, and his punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

It is first contended the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.

Defendant filed a timely motion to suppress the evidence and submitted the affidavit for search warrant and the warrant with the return thereon to the trial court, at which time the motion to suppress was denied.

*84 An examination of the affidavit discloses that it alleges facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the search warrant and that the search warrant was in proper form and duly served as required by law. Under the following authorities the evidence obtained by the search warrant was properly admitted: Baker v. State, 28 Okla. Cr. 408, 231 Pac. 320; Reutlinger v. State, 29 Okla. Cr. 290, 234 Pac. 224; Ray v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 1, 276 Pac. 785; McNew v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 129, 279 Pac. 978.

Other errors are complained of, but they are not of sufficient importance to require a separate discussion.

The cause is therefore 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.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Harmon county of the unlawful possession of a still, and his punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

It is first contended the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.

Defendant filed a timely motion to suppress the evidence and submitted the affidavit for search warrant and the warrant with the return thereon to the trial court, at which time the motion to suppress was denied.

*84 An examination of the affidavit discloses that it alleges facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the search warrant and that the search warrant was in proper form and duly served as required by law. Under the following authorities the evidence obtained by the search warrant was properly admitted: Baker v. State, 28 Okla. Cr. 408, 231 Pac. 320; Reutlinger v. State, 29 Okla. Cr. 290, 234 Pac. 224; Ray v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 1, 276 Pac. 785; McNew v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 129, 279 Pac. 978.

Other errors are complained of, but they are not of sufficient importance to require a separate discussion.

The cause is therefore affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK CR 86, 33 P.2d 1118, 56 Okla. Crim. 83, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bynum-v-state-oklacrimapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack