Payne v State

Payne v State
1947 OK CR 50
180 P.2d 193
84 Okl.Cr. 166
Decided: 04/30/1947
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error-Appeal Dismissed Because Transcript Failed to Contain Judgment and Sentence. Where an appeal is perfected by the filing of a transcript and it does not contain the judgment and sentence, the appeal will be dismissed upon proper motion by the state.

2. Searches and Seizures-Burden on Defendant to Show Invalidity of Search Warrant. Where the evidence shows that the premises of defendant were searched by reason of a search warrant in the hands of the officer, the burden of showing the invalidity of the search warrant is upon the defendant.

3. Same Burden on Defendant to Establish Fact That Premises Searched Were His Home. Where a defendant raises the question of the validity of a search of his home for intoxicating

Page 167

liquor, the burden is upon him to establish the fact that the premises searched were his home.

4. Intoxicating Liquors-Burden on State to Prove Possession With Intent to Violate Law. Where one is charged with the possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to barter, sell, convey or otherwise furnish the same contrary to law, the burden is upon the state to prove the possession thereof and that it was possessed with intent to violate law.

5. Same Evidence Showing Any Amount of Intoxicating Liquor Possessed With Intent to Sell in Violation of Law, Sufficient to Sustain Conviction. Under Tit. 37 0. S. 1941 § 82 it is necessary that the amount of liquor possessed be in excess of one quart before it will be "prima facie evidence of an Intention to convey, sell or otherwise dispose of such liquor." But if the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that any amount of intoxicating liquor is possessed with intent to "convey, sell or otherwise dispose of such liquor" in violation of law, such evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, regardless of the amount of liquor so possessed.

Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; E. A. Summers, Judge.

Fred Payne was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed and cause remanded with directions to enforce judgment and sentence.

Eck E. Brook, of Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chester Norman, of Muskogee, County Atty. Muskogee County, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT, P. J. This appeal is based upon a transcript from the district court of Muskogee county, Okla.

A complaint was filed in the city court of Muskogee, Okla., charging defendant with the unlawful possession of two pints of tax-paid whisky. He was found guilty and assessed a fine of $50, and 60 days in the county jail. An appeal was taken to the district court of Muskogee county,

Page 168

and the case was tried de novo, before the court, without a jury.

The transcript filed in this court does not show whether the defendant was found guilty or not guilty; does not contain the judgment and sentence of the district court; nor does it contain any order or minutes of the court or clerk showing the punishment assessed by the court. The only reference to a judgment or sentence is a recital in the petition in error that defendant was "assessed a fine of $100 against him and also imposed a jail sentence of thirty days in the Muskogee County jail."

If the state had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, the same would have been sustained. Bennett v. State, 78 Okla. Cr. 161, 152 P.2d 388.

The record discloses that the state relied upon two witnesses who were deputies from the office of the sheriff of Muskogee county. They testified to the searching of defendant's premises, which one of them described as:

"A. It had been a junk yard. It was a long sheet-iron building. There was an office in the front and a desk in the front room with a bed in the back, and it was full of plunder, lumber and stuff. They were repairing the building. There was nothing in there except that."

The officers found two pints of tax-paid whisky in the pocket of a raincoat which was hanging on the wall next to the desk in the front room of the building. They both knew the defendant, and testified that he was not present at the time of the search. Two other boys were in the building, but the deputies did not know their names. They did not know to whom the raincoat belonged. Both officers testified that the place had the reputation of being a place where liquor was unlawfully bought and sold. Defendant

Page 169

did not take the witness stand, nor did he introduce any evidence in his behalf.

Defendant's assignments of error are as follows:

"I. The court erred in convicting plaintiff in error (defendant, Fred Payne) because the testimony of the state is wholly insufficient to justify and sustain a conviction.

"2. The court erred in not dismissing said case upon completion of the testimony of the state, when the state failed to introduce its search warrant and its affidavit (if it had such).

"3. The court erred in not sustaining the demurrer of defendant to the state's testimony.

"4. The court erred in not sustaining defendant's motion for new trial."

As to the second error complained of, it may be stated that no motion to suppress the evidence by reason of an illegal search was filed or presented. No question was ever raised as to the validity of the search warrant. The only reference to a search warrant occurred when the assistant county attorney asked the first witness: "Q. And did you have a search warrant? A. Yes, sir."

No objection was made by defendant to this testimony, and the witness was not cross-examined concerning the name. There was no request that the search warrant be produced, and no attempt by the defendant to have it introduced in evidence. No reference was made thereto until the motion for new trial was filed. Under these facts, the defendant cannot now raise this question. Gragg v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 189, 114 P.2d 491.

The other three assignments of error may be presented together.

Page 170

Defendant first presents the question of the right to search his home, and cites cases in support thereof. The evidence in this case does not support the contention that the place searched was a home. Defendant did not testify and the evidence produced by the state would justify the belief that it was a place of business, rather than a home.

The defendant presents the question of intent, and says:

"To justify conviction for possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the law, possession of the liquor and criminal intent must be shown."

This proposition of law is true. But in this case the state alone introduced evidence. The liquor was found in defendant's place of business. When this was proven the presumption was that it was the property of defendant. There was no proof on the part of the defendant that he did not own the coat, or the liquor. The state has assumed the burden cast upon it when it proved that the place where the liquor was found was defendant's place of business. Defendant did not see fit to deny this and give the court an opportunity to find that the coat or the liquor did not belong to him.

The next question presented is that the evidence did not reveal the possession of intoxicating liquor "in excess of one quart" (Tit. 37 0. S. 1941 § 82), and, therefore, there could not be prima facie evidence that the possession thereof was for the purpose of sale.

The intent with which intoxicating liquor is possessed is a question of fact. Where the proof does not show that defendant had in excess of one quart of intoxicating liquor, then it is incumbent upon the state to show by other evidence that the defendant had the possession of the

Page 171

liquor with an unlawful intent, before it may be held that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Thomas v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 404, 106 P.2d 836.