Quick v State

Quick v State
1942 OK CR 126
129 P.2d 607
75 Okl.Cr. 182
Decided: 09/23/1942
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

Same as in case of Joe Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129, P. 2d 604, decided on the 23rd day of September, 1942.

1. Searches and Seizures-If Name of Party is Known It Should Be Stated in Affidavit and Warrant but Failure to Do so Is not Necessarily Fatal Defect. Where the name of the party is known to the person making an affidavit for the search of one's premises or person, it is the best practice to state the name in the affidavit and warrant. However, it is not always reversible error if this is not done.

2. Same Affidavit Held to State Sufficient Facts for Issuance of Warrant. Affidavit for search warrant examined and found to state sufficient facts to justify the issuance of the search warrant by the justice of the peace.

3. Intoxicating Liquors-Evidence Sustained Conviction for Unlawful Possession. Evidence examined and found sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence of $50 fine and 30 days in jail, for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Carl Traub, Judge.

Joe Quick was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robert R. Rittenhouse, of Oklahoma, City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and J. Walker Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

Page 183

BAREFOOT, P. J. Defendant, Joe Quick, was charged in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, to wit: twelve pints and four half pints of tax-paid liquor, on the 28th day of June, 1940, was tried, by the court, a jury having been waived, convicted and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail and has appealed.

The facts in this case are identical with the facts in the case of Joe Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604, this day decided by this court. Both cases have been briefed together and it is agreed by all parties that the facts and questions of law are identical. Upon the authority of the decision in that case, the judgment and sentence of the defendant in this case is affirmed.