McMillan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McMillan v. State

1925 OK CR 410, 238 P. 511, 31 Okla. Crim. 264, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 395

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 24, 1925

DocketNo. A-4919.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1925 OK CR 410 (McMillan 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

McMillan v. State, 1925 OK CR 410, 238 P. 511, 31 Okla. Crim. 264, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 395 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

The information in this case charges that in Tulsa county, April 10, 1923, Sandy McMillan did *265 have in his possession certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, 140 quarts of whisky, 60 gallons of alcohol, one case of gin, with the unlawful intent to sell the same. On the trial the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $500 and confinement for 6 months in the county jail.

The undisputed facts are that on the date alleged, the sheriff, together with other officers, raided defendant’s place under authority of a search warrant, and found intoxicating liquors as alleged in the information; that defendant’s place was a place of public resort.

R. D. Sanford, sheriff, testified that, with Vic Ellis, Marshall Moore, Frank Jones, R. H. Hyde, and T. E. Brentz, he visted the defendant’s place about a mile out of the city on the Peoria street road, and under authority of a search warrant issued to him by the county judge he, assisted by the other officers, searched the defendant’s premises; that they uncovered in the chicken yard a concrete cave, and in that cavity was 15 5-gallon cans of alcohol, 18 1-gallon cans, 21 sacks of whisky, and a case of gin. Vic Ellis, Marshall Moore, R. H. Hyde, and Frank Jones testified, in substance, to the same facts-as did sheriff Sanford.

At the close of the state’s evidence, there was a motion by the defendant for a directed verdict of acquittal, which motion was denied. The defendant did not testify.

The errors assigned on which the defendant asks for a reversal are the same as in the case of Sandy McMillan v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 261, 238 P. 510, this day decided adversely to defendant’s contentions.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

The information in this case charges that in Tulsa county, April 10, 1923, Sandy McMillan did *265 have in his possession certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, 140 quarts of whisky, 60 gallons of alcohol, one case of gin, with the unlawful intent to sell the same. On the trial the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $500 and confinement for 6 months in the county jail.

The undisputed facts are that on the date alleged, the sheriff, together with other officers, raided defendant’s place under authority of a search warrant, and found intoxicating liquors as alleged in the information; that defendant’s place was a place of public resort.

R. D. Sanford, sheriff, testified that, with Vic Ellis, Marshall Moore, Frank Jones, R. H. Hyde, and T. E. Brentz, he visted the defendant’s place about a mile out of the city on the Peoria street road, and under authority of a search warrant issued to him by the county judge he, assisted by the other officers, searched the defendant’s premises; that they uncovered in the chicken yard a concrete cave, and in that cavity was 15 5-gallon cans of alcohol, 18 1-gallon cans, 21 sacks of whisky, and a case of gin. Vic Ellis, Marshall Moore, R. H. Hyde, and Frank Jones testified, in substance, to the same facts-as did sheriff Sanford.

At the close of the state’s evidence, there was a motion by the defendant for a directed verdict of acquittal, which motion was denied. The defendant did not testify.

The errors assigned on which the defendant asks for a reversal are the same as in the case of Sandy McMillan v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 261, 238 P. 510, this day decided adversely to defendant’s contentions.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 410, 238 P. 511, 31 Okla. Crim. 264, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack