In State v. La Pean, supra, the court said, "The only question is whether this confession was obtained by promises which induced [the accused] to make an untrue or untrustworthy confession." See also United States v. Gorayska, 482 F. Supp. 576 (1979) and Greenwood v. State, 107 Ark. 568 (1913). Having made an independent review of the entire circumstances presented to the trial court, we are unable to say that on a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court's findings that the confession was made knowingly and voluntarily is clearly erroneous.
A statement induced by fear or hope of reward is not voluntary. Greenwood v. State, 107 Ark. 568, 156 S.W. 427 (1913).
(Emphasis supplied.) It has been held in numerous cases construing the foregoing section of the Oklahoma Statutes that the purchase of the special United States liquor dealer's license is prima facie evidence of an intent thereafter to violate the prohibition law, or more specifically, the provisions of the chapter covering possession or transportation of intoxicating liquors, etc., in the State of Oklahoma. Deeds v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 210, 111 P. 667; Etchison v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 106, 122 P. 242; Greenwood v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 342, 131 P. 940; Gentry v. State, 85 Okla. Cr. 296, 187 P.2d 1010; Bishop v. State, supra; Henderson v. State, Okla. Cr. 285 P.2d 866; Wolgram v. State, Okla. Cr. 288 P.2d 203; Curlee v. State, Okla., 309 P.2d 1064. We have examined the record and find no fundamental error, but in view of the fact that Officer Haggard volunteered the foregoing statement in the state's case in chief which tended to reflect on the character of the accused without he having put the same in issue, justifies a modification of the judgment and sentence to a $50 fine and thirty days in jail, and as modified, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
Pursuant to this statute this court has sustained the admission in evidence of a federal license stamp found in the possession of the party charged with the violation of the intoxicating liquor law, made out to him and covering the period of time during which it is alleged that he violated the intoxicating liquor law. Greenwood v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 342, 131 P. 940; Cahn v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 200, 135 P. 1155; Walker v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 339, 127 P. 895. The record here discloses that a search of defendant's premises was made by county officers of Garvin county and about 12 pints of intoxicating liquor seized by the officers.