Jay v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Jay v. State

1927 OK CR 220, 258 P. 1060, 37 Okla. Crim. 425, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 81

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 12, 1927

DocketNo. A-5852.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1927 OK CR 220 (Jay 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

Jay v. State, 1927 OK CR 220, 258 P. 1060, 37 Okla. Crim. 425, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 81 (Okla. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

Appellant, Howard Jay, was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for 30 days. When ar *426 raigned, appellant made a motion to quash the information, on the ground that the evidence had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, which was overruled, exception taken, and the ruling assigned as error.

The undisputed facts are that officers, in executing a search warrant, visited the home of Harry iSalyers. Appellant drove in from the highway to the house in a Ford car and stopped by the side of the house. The officers went out, and appellant got out of the car, and broke a half pint of whisky over the rear fender, and was arrested by the officers. In the car was a five-gallon jar, which had contained whisky. Appellant did not testify as a witness. An examination of the record discloses that the evidence for the state supports the allegations of the information; that appellant, by his own acts committed in the presence of the officers, was lawfully arrested in the commission of an offense.

Upon the undisputed facts it is not necessary to determine in this case whether the search warrant in question was properly issued.

Finding no errors of law, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

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, Howard Jay, was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for 30 days. When ar *426 raigned, appellant made a motion to quash the information, on the ground that the evidence had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, which was overruled, exception taken, and the ruling assigned as error.

The undisputed facts are that officers, in executing a search warrant, visited the home of Harry iSalyers. Appellant drove in from the highway to the house in a Ford car and stopped by the side of the house. The officers went out, and appellant got out of the car, and broke a half pint of whisky over the rear fender, and was arrested by the officers. In the car was a five-gallon jar, which had contained whisky. Appellant did not testify as a witness. An examination of the record discloses that the evidence for the state supports the allegations of the information; that appellant, by his own acts committed in the presence of the officers, was lawfully arrested in the commission of an offense.

Upon the undisputed facts it is not necessary to determine in this case whether the search warrant in question was properly issued.

Finding no errors of law, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK CR 220, 258 P. 1060, 37 Okla. Crim. 425, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jay-v-state-oklacrimapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack