Hollingsworth v State

Hollingsworth v State
1932 OK CR 51
10 P.2d 458
53 Okl.Cr. 280
Decided: 02/19/1932
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

Trial Permitting Introduction of Search Warrant and Affidavit as Primary Evidence Held Denial of Right to Be Confronted with Witnesses.

Appeal from County Court, McClain County; H.R. Jacobs, Judge.

C.T. Hollingsworth and two others were convicted of maintaining a public nuisance, and they appeal. Judgment reversed.

C.T. Lane and Glasco & Ballard, for plaintiffs in error.

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

DAVENPORT, P.J. The plaintiffs in error, C.T. Hollingsworth, Ed Hollingsworth, and J.B. Hollingsworth, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, were convicted of maintaining a public nuisance, and each sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to be imprisoned in the county jail for 60 days, and appeal.

After a careful examination of the record, it is not deemed necessary to set out the evidence in full. It is sufficient in this case to refer to some of the testimony that was admitted by the court, over the objections of the defendants.

Several errors have been assigned, but the only assignment

Page 281

necessary to be considered is, that the court erred in admitting, over the objection of the defendants, irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial testimony. This assignment relates to the action of the court in admitting the state's Exhibit A, which is the affidavit for the search warrant, and Exhibit B, which is the search warrant. The recitals in the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant are substantially the same. The allegations in the affidavit tend to establish facts very material against the defendants and put in issue the character of the defendants. Williams v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 359, 246 P. 895; Weeks v. State, 41 Okla. Cr. 95, 270 P. 858; Ford v. State, 45 Okla. Cr. 161, 282 P. 370.

We hold that in admitting the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant, over the objections of the defendants, the court erred, and the defendants were denied their constitutional right of confrontation by the witnesses. (Const. art. 1, § 20.)