Hyatt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hyatt v. State

1927 OK CR 368, 262 P. 215, 38 Okla. Crim. 382, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 363

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 30, 1927

DocketNo. A-6213.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1927 OK CR 368 (Hyatt 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

Hyatt v. State, 1927 OK CR 368, 262 P. 215, 38 Okla. Crim. 382, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 363 (Okla. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

Appellant, M. H. Hyatt, was convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, was sentenced to pay a fine of $160, and to imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days.

The errors assigned are, in substance, that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence on the part of the state, which evidence was obtained by an illegal search of the private residence of the defendant, under a void search warrant.

The affidavit for the search warrant issued by Chas. W. McDonald, justice of the peace, recites “that intoxicating liquors are being kept by Hyte, on Hyte farm, and in possession in a certain building or premises situated on the N. W. % sec. 33 — 38—12 west,” and does not state that the same was a place of public resort.

*383 The proof shows that the officers searched the private residence of the defendant.

The state rested, and the court overruled the defendant’s motion that all the evidence be stricken because the same was secured by an illegal search and seizure.

It is well settled that under the statute (section 7013) no officer is authorized to search a private residence occupied as such, unless it, or some part of it, is used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, or place for storage, or unless such residence is a place of public resort, and that no magistrate in this state has the power to issue a search warrant to search a private residence, occupied as such, unless it is made clearly to appear that such private residence comes within the exceptions stated in said section. Foster v. State, 27 Okla. Cr. 270, 226 P. 602; Coatney v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 270, 235 P. 942; Duncan v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 217, 144 P. 629.

Other errors are assigned and argued, but it does not seem necessary that we should extend this opinion "by reference thereto. As shown by the record, the search and seizure in this case was an invasion of the constitutional and statutory rights of the defendant, and' "the evidence complained of was improperly admitted.

The judgment herein is therefore reversed.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

Appellant, M. H. Hyatt, was convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, was sentenced to pay a fine of $160, and to imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days.

The errors assigned are, in substance, that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence on the part of the state, which evidence was obtained by an illegal search of the private residence of the defendant, under a void search warrant.

The affidavit for the search warrant issued by Chas. W. McDonald, justice of the peace, recites “that intoxicating liquors are being kept by Hyte, on Hyte farm, and in possession in a certain building or premises situated on the N. W. % sec. 33 — 38—12 west,” and does not state that the same was a place of public resort.

*383 The proof shows that the officers searched the private residence of the defendant.

The state rested, and the court overruled the defendant’s motion that all the evidence be stricken because the same was secured by an illegal search and seizure.

It is well settled that under the statute (section 7013) no officer is authorized to search a private residence occupied as such, unless it, or some part of it, is used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, or place for storage, or unless such residence is a place of public resort, and that no magistrate in this state has the power to issue a search warrant to search a private residence, occupied as such, unless it is made clearly to appear that such private residence comes within the exceptions stated in said section. Foster v. State, 27 Okla. Cr. 270, 226 P. 602; Coatney v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 270, 235 P. 942; Duncan v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 217, 144 P. 629.

Other errors are assigned and argued, but it does not seem necessary that we should extend this opinion "by reference thereto. As shown by the record, the search and seizure in this case was an invasion of the constitutional and statutory rights of the defendant, and' "the evidence complained of was improperly admitted.

The judgment herein is therefore reversed.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK CR 368, 262 P. 215, 38 Okla. Crim. 382, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyatt-v-state-oklacrimapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack