Satterfield v. StateSatterfield v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Chappell
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Atoka county of the crime of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed by the jury аt a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days.
The evidence of the state was that the defendаnt had a place on the public highway at Beynolds in Atoka county where he sold lunches and sandwiches, and where the public in general would congregate; that the officers with a search warrant searched the defendant’s premises and found 2 сases of beer 81 steps from where defendant lived, 16 gallons of beer 41 steps from where defendant lived, 10 or 12 bottles of beer in the ice box in the house, and a half pint of whisky in the room wherе the restaurant was operating; that this place was a place of public resort and had the reputation of bеing a place where intoxicating liquors were sold.
The defendant, testifying, denied that he knew anything about any of the beer except what was found in the ice box, and that he had this beer and thе whisky for his own personal use. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had been convicted of violating the prohibition *420 laws of Oklahoma. At the close of the state’s evidence, the defendant moved the court to suppress the evidence fоr the reason that the state had not introduced any affidavit and search warrant to show their authority to search the premises of the defendant and it had not been shown that the defendаnt consented to the search. The defendant contends thаt the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce testimоny to show what was found in defendant’s house and restaurant without first having offered a search warrant to justify the search.
In the case of Ray v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 1, 276 Pac. 785, this court said:
“The burden of рroving the invalidity of the search rested on the defendant and nоt on the state.” Winger v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 140, 277 Pac. 947.
In the case of Ford v. State, 45 Okla. Cr. 161, 282 Pac. 370, this court said:
“The proper procedure is for the defendant to file a motion to suppress the evidеnce or object to the introduction of the evidence at the time the same is offered, upon the ground that there wаs no affidavit or search warrant, or that the affidavit or the sеarch warrant is illegal or insufficient. The court then should hear thе objections out of the1 presence and hearing of the jury. The burden rests upon the defendant, where he attacks the suffiсiency of the affidavit for the search warrant, to exhibit the sаme to the court in support of his objections, and the court upon an examination of the affidavit and the warrant must summarily dеtermine the sufficiency of the affidavit and the warrant and the admissibility of the evidence. The presumption of law is that the affidаvit and the warrant are sufficient and the search and seizure lеgal. If the defendant desires to attack the affidavit or the warrant he should subpoena the magistrate issuing the same to appear and produce the affidavit and warrant upon which the search was made. If they cannot be pro *421 duced, dеfendant may offer secondary evidence of their contents.”
The evidence being sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and the errors of law complained of being insufficient to require a reversal, the cause is affirmed.
EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.