King v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. McCormick v. State

    388 P.2d 873 (Okla. Crim. App. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    This Court has time and again held that the search warrant must so particularly describe the place to be searched that the officer can find the place without the aid of any other information save that contained in the warrant. Burns v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 24, 220 P.2d 473; State v. Bybee, 66 Okla. Cr. 234, 90 P.2d 1077; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771; Sanders v. State, Okla. Cr. 370 P.2d 573. In State v. Bybee, supra, the Court said:

  2. Stone v. State

    276 P.2d 799 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954)

    Officer Lynch testified that he knew the defendant well and had been to his home on many other occasions, but in order for the search herein to be valid, the warrant itself must so particularly describe the place to be searched that the officer to whom it was directed may ascertain the place from an examination of the warrant leaving him no discretion as to the place to be searched. King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771; Barnett v. State, 94 Okla. Cr. 180, 232 P.2d 660; Littke v. State, Okla. Cr. 267 P.2d 614. As to whether defendant's house which was searched was a two or three story house, there is very little conflict in the evidence.

  3. Skaggs v. State

    272 P.2d 1048 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 1 times

    The fourth proposition urged by the defendant is that the court erred in admitting in evidence the certificate of the Collector of Internal Revenue showing Alma Skaggs had purchased a federal Retail Liquor Dealer's license, for sale of liquor in Ada, Oklahoma, covering the time herein in question. As hereinbefore indicated such proof was clearly admissible. Title 37 O.S. 1951 § 81[ 37-81]; Garner v. State, Okla. Cr. 248 P.2d 283; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771. For all the above and foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence herein imposed is accordingly reversed and remanded for new trial.

  4. Littke v. State

    267 P.2d 614 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 5 times

    However, this court has repeatedly held that in order for a search warrant to be valid, it must so particularly describe the place to be searched that the officer to whom it is directed may determine it from the warrant, and that no discretion as to the place to be searched should be left to the officer. Barnett v. State, Okla. Cr. 232 P.2d 660; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771. We think the point is well taken wherein the defendant contends as a matter of law that if this court should hold that the garage apartment was not within the curtilage that the officers, would necessarily have been required to exercise discretion in determining whether the garage apartment was also included in the property to be searched, inasmuch as the warrant directed the search of other buildings and structures located on said premises within the curtilage.

  5. Thompson v. State

    261 P.2d 900 (Okla. Crim. App. 1953)   Cited 3 times

    In that the defendant denied being in the liquor business and of making the sale in question, if she in fact possessed a stamp, the county attorney could have obtained such information by way of the prescribed certificate from the proper Federal official as by law provided and used such certificate in cross-examination of the defendant herself, or by way of rebuttal, but for the sole purpose of impeachment. The jury under such circumstances would be so instructed. Billingsley v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 597, 113 P. 241; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771; Garner v. State, 96 Okla. Cr. 68, 248, P.2d 283. In Neely v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 99, 61 P.2d 741, this court said:

  6. Pierce v. State

    253 P.2d 194 (Okla. Crim. App. 1953)   Cited 7 times

    The law presumes the legality and regularity of all proceedings and accused charged with a violation of the prohibitory laws who raises the question of the invalidity of the search and seizure of contraband must assume the burden and introduce evidence to show the invalidity of the search. Clasby v. State, 78 Okla. Cr. 45, 143 P.2d 430; Phinney v. State, 90 Okla. Cr. 21, 210 P.2d 205; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771; Combs v. State, 94 Okla. Cr. 206, 233 P.2d 314; Sykes v. State, 95 Okla. Cr. 14, 238 P.2d 384. In addition the record shows that the accused was arrested by highway patrolmen for violating the rules of the road by reckless driving and after the arrest was made the whiskey, which was sitting in open view in the car, was seized.

  7. Garner v. State

    248 P.2d 283 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    These statutes, excepting of Tit. 12 O.S.A. § 500 [ 12-500], were first construed by this court in the case of Billingsley v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 597, 113 P. 241 wherein reference is made to both the State and Federal provisions on the subject. The facts with reference to the certificate in the Billingsley case and this case are similar. A certified copy of the record is all that is necessary. Hargrove v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 487, 129 P. 74; Cahn v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 200, 135 P. 1155; Markeson v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 578, 149 P. 928; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771. In the within case the certificate copied above shows on its face to have been transmitted to Lewis T. Martin, county attorney, Durant, whom this court will take judicial knowledge was county attorney of Bryan county, Oklahoma; and this court will take judicial notice that it is the duty of the Collector of Internal Revenue for this State, to keep at record of the names of all persons who shall have paid special taxes within his district, and shall state thereon the time, place and business for which such special taxes have been paid, and upon the application of any prosecutor's office of any state, county or municipality, he shall furnish a certified copy thereof, as of a public record.

  8. Davenport v. State

    242 P.2d 466 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    No testimony was offered by the defendant herein to show that the place searched by the officers was at a different place than that set forth in the description mentioned in the warrant, neither did they offer proof to show that there was more than one house in the section named in the warrant. If the accused had shown that there were more than one set of buildings in the section described in the warrant, which dwelling houses or buildings were owned and in possession of persons other than defendant, then under the rulings of this court the motion to suppress evidence should have been sustained for the reason it was what has been termed a blanket warrant. This case is comparable in many aspects to the recent decision of King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771, wherein it was held that the accused had failed to introduce evidence to show the invalidity of the search. In that case the defendant contended that the description of the quarter section of land named in the warrant contained two or more dwelling houses, but this court held that the evidence of the defendant in that regard was so ambiguous, conflicting and uncertain that it was impossible for the trial court to determine that there were actually two sets of dwelling houses on the quarter section of land described in the warrant.

  9. Sykes v. State

    238 P.2d 384 (Okla. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 7 times

    The law presumes the legality and regularity of all proceedings and accused charged with a violation of the prohibitory laws who raises the question of the invalidity of the search and seizure of contraband must assume the burden and introduce evidence to show the invalidity of the search. Clasby v. State, 78 Okla. Cr. 45, 143 P.2d 430; Phinney v. State, 90 Okla. Cr. 21, 210 P.2d 205; King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771; Combs v. State, 94 Okla. Cr. 206, 233 P.2d 314. At the trial of the case the evidence of the state showed that Sheriff Palmer, together with Deputy Sheriffs Hayward, Lorenzen, and Woods, procured a warrant to search the premises occupied by the defendant, which had formerly been a filling station on the public highway, but at the time of the search was occupied by the defendant as a residence.

  10. King v. State

    92 Okla. Crim. 389 (Okla. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 9 times

    Attached to the motion for new trial of defendant was what was purportedly a photographic copy of the license, which recites that it was effective from 7-1-48 to 6-30-49; evidently being issued for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1949. This identical issue has been considered and decided adversely to the defendant in the companion case of King v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 267, 222 P.2d 771. It is next contended that the county attorney committed reversible error in his argument to the jury.