Lawrence v State

Lawrence v State
1931 OK CR 295
300 P. 435
51 Okl.Cr. 163
Decided: 06/12/1931
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

Intoxicating Liquors Conviction for Possession of Still and Worm Sustained.

Appeal from County Court, Pottawatomie County; Leroy G. Cooper, Judge.

Oscar Lawrence was convicted of having the possession of a still and worm, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Waldrep, Winterringer & Akin, for plaintiff in error.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVENPORT, P.J. The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of a still and worm, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days. From the judgment, the defendant has appealed.

Considerable record is made in this case on the question of the validity of a search warrant. From an examination of the testimony contained in the record, the testimony of the state shows that the officers had searched certain places, and when they came to defendant's house and talked with him with reference to the information they had that a still was somewhere on the place, the defendant told them where it was and went with them to where the still was located, which was something like a half mile or more from the defendant's house. Some of the testimony of the state tends to show that the defendant told the officers that he and a man by the name of Sutton were running the still on a fifty-fifty basis. This

Page 164

was denied by the defendant. The defendant denied he had anything to do with the still, and claims he discovered the location of the still while he was out squirrel hunting.

Several errors are assigned by the defendant and urged for a reversal of this case. The seventh assignment is that the verdict of the jury and judgment and sentence of the court is not sustained by the evidence. The testimony of the state is in conflict with the defendant's testimony. That question was settled by the jury adverse to the defendant. Where there is any competent evidence upon which the jury can reasonably find a verdict of guilty, this court will not disturb the same. Tennison v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 257, 240 P. 323; Shields v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 344, 240 P. 661; and Frank Harvey v. State, 51 Okla. Cr. 164, 300 P. 434.