Cudjo v. State

1926 OK CR 189, 245 P. 906, 34 Okla. Crim. 199, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 415
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided May 8, 1926·No. No. A-5487.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

BESSEY, P. J.

King Cudjo, plaintiff in error, was convicted of the illegal possession of a still and mash fit for distillation. By verdict of the jury his punishment was fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for 90 days. From the judgment on this verdict he appeals.

The evidence upon which this conviction rests was procured by means of a search warrant issued upon an affidavit which was not sufficient to give the magistrate jurisdiction to issue it. A private residence is immune from search and seizure, unless a showing is made by sufficient affidavit that the residence or a portion of it is a store, rooming house, place of storage, or a place of public resort. No such showing was made in this case.

The' cause is. reversed, With instructions to dismiss the action.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

Cudjo v. State, 1926 OK CR 189, 245 P. 906, 34 Okla. Crim. 199, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 415 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

1926 OK CR 189 (Cudjo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buckley v. State
1940 OK CR 59 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)
Taylor v. State
1928 OK CR 334 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1928)
Hamilton v. State
1928 OK CR 198 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1928)
Oliver v. State
1927 OK CR 327 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1927)
Glass v. State
1927 OK CR 177 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1927)