Row v State

Row v State
1947 OK CR 155
188 P.2d 395
85 Okl.Cr. 421
Decided: 12/31/1947
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors-Sufficiency of Affidavit-Printed as Well as Written Part to Be Considered. The mere fact that the affidavit filed to secure a search warrant for the purpose of searching premises fully described was on a printed form does not render it insufficient where it is stated therein in clear and positive terms that intoxicating liquor is being "sold, bartered, given away and otherwise furnished in violation of the prohibitory laws of the State of Oklahoma."

2. Searches and Seizures-Sufficiency of Description of Premises in Search Warrant. Evidence sustained finding that description in search warrant was sufficient to enable officer executing the warrant to locate the premises to be searched without the aid of any other information save that contained in the warrant.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Wm. N., Randolph, Judge.

Coy Lee Row was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W. 0. Moffett, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dixie Gilmer, Co. Atty., of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT, P. J. Coy Lee Row was charged in the court of common pleas, Tulsa county, with the offense of possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell; waived a jury and was tried to the court, found guilty and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and 60 days in the county jail and he has appealed.

Defendant was charged with having possession of four one-fifths gallons of gin, and one one-fifth gallon of whisky. Two deputies from the office of the sheriff were the only

Page 422

witnesses. They testified to finding the liquor in the apartment of the defendant.

When the case came on for trial the defendant was permitted to withdraw his plea of not guilty, previously made, whereupon he filed a motion to suppress the evidence. Testimony of one of the deputies making tile search was offered. The motion was overruled and defendant again entered his plea of guilty, and the case was tried to the court, with the result above indicated.

For a reversal of this case, defendant contends that the affidavit upon which the search warrant issued was wholly insufficient; that it was on a printed form, and did not set forth any facts upon which search warrant should issue for a private residence.

The affidavit was introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The mere fact that the affidavit was on a printed form does not render it insufficient, where, as in this instance, it is stated in clear and positive terms that intoxicating liquor is being sold, bartered, given away and otherwise furnished in violation of the prohibitory laws of the State of Oklahoma, at "a certain apartment numbered 3 of a two-story frame building dwelling located at 1319 south Denver Street, in the city of Tulsa, county of Tulsa, Oklahoma," etc. The affidavit was properly sworn to by one of the officers making the search. We are of the opinion that tile affidavit was sufficient to warrant the issuance of the search warrant. Smith v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 144, 235 P. 273; Hays v. State, 71 Okla. Cr. 62, 108 P.2d 186, 187; Hudgens v. State, 74 Okla. Cr. 56, 122 P.2d 815.

Defendant further contends that the description of the premises to be searched was insufficient, and in support

Page 423