Perry v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Perry v. State

1929 OK CR 51, 274 P. 686, 42 Okla. Crim. 92, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 16, 1929

DocketNo. A-6412.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1929 OK CR 51 (Perry 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

Perry v. State, 1929 OK CR 51, 274 P. 686, 42 Okla. Crim. 92, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted on a charge of having the unlawful possession of a still, intoxicating liquor, and mash, and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

It is first argued that the search was illegal as having been made without a search warrant. Upon this point the record discloses that the still, whisky, and mash were found in some brush about a quarter of a mile from the residence.house. It is well settled that no search warrant *93 is necessary to search fields, woods, pastures, or land not within the curtilage or immediate proximity of the residence.

Complaint is next made that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. The record is very brief, and we have read the same carefully, and, while the evidence, connecting the defendants with the possession and ownership of the whisky, mash, and still, is not unusually strong, yet, if believed by the jury, there was sufficient from which they could reasonably and logically find the guilt of the defendants, and, where there is sufficient evidence under this rule, its weight and credibility is for the jury, and this court will not disturb the judgment for insufficiency.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

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

EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted on a charge of having the unlawful possession of a still, intoxicating liquor, and mash, and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

It is first argued that the search was illegal as having been made without a search warrant. Upon this point the record discloses that the still, whisky, and mash were found in some brush about a quarter of a mile from the residence.house. It is well settled that no search warrant *93 is necessary to search fields, woods, pastures, or land not within the curtilage or immediate proximity of the residence.

Complaint is next made that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. The record is very brief, and we have read the same carefully, and, while the evidence, connecting the defendants with the possession and ownership of the whisky, mash, and still, is not unusually strong, yet, if believed by the jury, there was sufficient from which they could reasonably and logically find the guilt of the defendants, and, where there is sufficient evidence under this rule, its weight and credibility is for the jury, and this court will not disturb the judgment for insufficiency.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 51, 274 P. 686, 42 Okla. Crim. 92, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack