Meek v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Meek v. State

1931 OK CR 230, 1 P.2d 838, 51 Okla. Crim. 350, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 335

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 16, 1931

DocketNo. A-7937.

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK CR 230 (Meek 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

Meek v. State, 1931 OK CR 230, 1 P.2d 838, 51 Okla. Crim. 350, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 335 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Caddo county on a charge of having the possession of a still worm, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

The principal argument is that the evidence of the state was incompetent, as there was no sufficient showing authorizing the issuance of a search warrant for the residence of defendant. The contention cannot be sustained. The warrant was issued on an affidavit setting out that the place of residence was a place of storage and a place of resort where people congregate for the purpose of obtaining and drinking intoxicating- liquor. The affidavit makes a sufficient showing of probable cause to authorize the magistrate to issue the search warrant. There is also1 some showing by defendant that he *351 did not know of the worm in Ms house and attributed its being there to the spite of some neighbors. This was a question of fact which was submitted to the jury, who saw and observed the witnesses. No reason to disturb the judgment is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Caddo county on a charge of having the possession of a still worm, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

The principal argument is that the evidence of the state was incompetent, as there was no sufficient showing authorizing the issuance of a search warrant for the residence of defendant. The contention cannot be sustained. The warrant was issued on an affidavit setting out that the place of residence was a place of storage and a place of resort where people congregate for the purpose of obtaining and drinking intoxicating- liquor. The affidavit makes a sufficient showing of probable cause to authorize the magistrate to issue the search warrant. There is also1 some showing by defendant that he *351 did not know of the worm in Ms house and attributed its being there to the spite of some neighbors. This was a question of fact which was submitted to the jury, who saw and observed the witnesses. No reason to disturb the judgment is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 230, 1 P.2d 838, 51 Okla. Crim. 350, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.