Rogers v. StateRogers v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Jones
The defendant, Seidel Rogers; was chargеd ■by information with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in the court ‘of common pleas of Oklahoma county on June 12, 1939; was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 45 days in the county jail andi to pay a fine of $50, from which judgment and sentence he appeals to this court.
On June 6,1939, the premises at 305 West Reno street, Oklahoma City, Okla., were searchеd and defendant was charged with unlawful pоssession of two one-half gallons of intoxicating liquor.
Defendant contends that his motion to suppress the evidence shоuld have been sustained because оf illegal search and seizure, and that thе evidence is insufficient to support thе verdict.
Upon his motion to suppress, thе defendant denied possession of whisky and stated that he did not live at 305 West Reno. Under the defendant’s statement, the motion was properly overruled, since this cоurt held in White v. State, 33 Okla. Cr. 428, 244 P. 450:
“It seems to be well settled that a person, not being the owner or proprietor of the premises sеarched by virtue of a search warrant, and not claiming- any interest in the proрerty so found, cannot complain uрon the trial of the alleged illegal search, nor object to’ the introduction of evidence thus obtained.”
See, also, Luton v. State, 47 Okla. Cr. 82, 286 P. 350; Dyer v. State, 61 Okla. Cr. 202, 66 P. 2d 1104; Boardwine v. State, 64 Okla. Cr. 49, 76 P. 2d 1081; Tacker v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 72, 113 P. 2d 394.
The state offered the testimony of the arresting оfficer, Isenhour, that defendant pourеd the contents of two one-half gallоn fruit jars into the sink before he could stop him. That about a dram was left in one of the jars, *125 and it was corn wliisky. Defendant stated tо the officer that he was trying to- make a living for his family, and was selling short drinks. Less than a pint of liquid was taken from the drain pipe of thе sink. This was identified and offered in evidence. The testimony showed that it was corn whisky. It was stipulated that Officer Davis would testify to substantially the same facts as Officer Isenhour.
Dеfendant denied possession of the whisky, аnd stated that the empty fruit jars were on thе sink when the search was made. He stated that the liquid offered in evidence looked different from the contents of the drain pipe.
The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Blair v. State, 55 Okla. Cr. 280, 29 P. 2d 998.
Finding no error, the case is affirmed.
BAREFOOT, P. J., concurs. DOYLE, J., absent.