Tidwell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Tidwell v. State

1931 OK CR 428, 3 P.2d 454, 52 Okla. Crim. 148, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 414

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 25, 1931

DocketNo. A-8079.

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK CR 428 (Tidwell 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

Tidwell v. State, 1931 OK CR 428, 3 P.2d 454, 52 Okla. Crim. 148, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 414 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

*149 The record discloses that certain officers went to the residence of defendant, saw him coming from the orchard with something in his hands. He stepped behind the house, and then came out without the object he was carrying. The officers made a search and found a half gallon jar of whisky in a cream can behind the house. Proper objection was made to the admission of this testimony on the ground that it was obtained by an unlawful search at the residence of defendant without a search warrant. The objection should have been sustained. The evidence was incompetent under article 2, § 30, State Const.

The case is reversed.

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 Washita county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

*149 The record discloses that certain officers went to the residence of defendant, saw him coming from the orchard with something in his hands. He stepped behind the house, and then came out without the object he was carrying. The officers made a search and found a half gallon jar of whisky in a cream can behind the house. Proper objection was made to the admission of this testimony on the ground that it was obtained by an unlawful search at the residence of defendant without a search warrant. The objection should have been sustained. The evidence was incompetent under article 2, § 30, State Const.

The case is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 428, 3 P.2d 454, 52 Okla. Crim. 148, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tidwell-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.