Dale v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Dale v. State

1931 OK CR 384, 2 P.2d 607, 52 Okla. Crim. 97, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 375

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 28, 1931

DocketNo. A-8049.

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK CR 384 (Dale 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

Dale v. State, 1931 OK CR 384, 2 P.2d 607, 52 Okla. Crim. 97, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 375 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Noble county of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of flOO and to serve 60 days in the county jail.

At the time charged, certain officers with a search warrant went to the residence of defendant, which was also a rooming house, made a search, and found four half-gallon jars of whisky concealed in a washbench upon which a tub of wash water was sitting. Defendant was a married woman, but at the time her husband had been incarcerated in the jail for some 10 days. ,She denied possession or knowledge of the whisky.

It is argued there is not sufficient proof of defendant’s possession, but that the presumption is that the whisky was in the possession of her husband. The title of the real estate was in the wife, and they operated the rooming house together. While living together, there is *98 no presumption either one was in possession to the exclusion of the other. Section 1516, Comp. St. 1921, has no application in this case. The concealment of the whisky in the place where it was found and the fact that a tub of water was sitting on top of the loose board concealing it fully justified the jury in finding defendant had the possession. We see no reason to disturb the verdict of the jury.

The case is affirmed.

CHAPPELL, J., concurs. DAVENPORT, P. J., absent, not participating.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Noble county of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of flOO and to serve 60 days in the county jail.

At the time charged, certain officers with a search warrant went to the residence of defendant, which was also a rooming house, made a search, and found four half-gallon jars of whisky concealed in a washbench upon which a tub of wash water was sitting. Defendant was a married woman, but at the time her husband had been incarcerated in the jail for some 10 days. ,She denied possession or knowledge of the whisky.

It is argued there is not sufficient proof of defendant’s possession, but that the presumption is that the whisky was in the possession of her husband. The title of the real estate was in the wife, and they operated the rooming house together. While living together, there is *98 no presumption either one was in possession to the exclusion of the other. Section 1516, Comp. St. 1921, has no application in this case. The concealment of the whisky in the place where it was found and the fact that a tub of water was sitting on top of the loose board concealing it fully justified the jury in finding defendant had the possession. We see no reason to disturb the verdict of the jury.

The case is affirmed.

CHAPPELL, J., concurs. DAVENPORT, P. J., absent, not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 384, 2 P.2d 607, 52 Okla. Crim. 97, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.