State v. Linthicum

1939 OK CR 127, 94 P.2d 857, 67 Okla. Crim. 435, 1939 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 6, 1939
DocketNo. A-9498.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1939 OK CR 127 (State v. Linthicum) 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
State v. Linthicum, 1939 OK CR 127, 94 P.2d 857, 67 Okla. Crim. 435, 1939 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154 (Okla. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

This is an appeal taken by the state from the common pleas court of Oklahoma county, upon a question of law reserved by the state for decision of this court in the trial of one Roy Linthicum, who by information filed in said court September 20, 1937, was charged with the illegal possession of half a pint of tax paid whisky, in said county on September 18, 1937.

When the case was called for trial the defendant interposed motion to suppress the evidence. Upon the hearing had the trial court sustained the motion, to which the state excepted, and from said ruling and order of said court an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on April 20, 1938, petition in error with case-made.

No briefs have been filed, apparently for the reason that in the companion case of Linthicum v. State, 66 Okla. Cr. 327, 92 P. 2d 381, the question was answered, wherein this court held:

“Where place to be searched is described in complaint or affidavit and in search warrant issued thereon by a single street number, without naming the owner or any of the occupants, and two or more families reside in *437 separate apartments therein, a search warrant directing the officers to search the premises designated by such single number is void, since in legal contemplation it describes more than one place.”

For the reasons stated, the order of said common pleas court sustaining the motion to suppress the evidence is affirmed and cause remanded with direction to dismiss.

BAREFOOT and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dawson v. State
1949 OK CR 95 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1949)
Davis v. State
1943 OK CR 77 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1939 OK CR 127, 94 P.2d 857, 67 Okla. Crim. 435, 1939 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-linthicum-oklacrimapp-1939.