Franklin v State

Franklin v State
1949 OK CR 62
206 P.2d 1011
89 Okl.Cr. 267
Decided: 05/25/1949
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

( Syllabus. )

1. Appeal and ErrorSufficiency of Evidence, Though Conflicting to Sustain Conviction. Where jury is waived, the judgment of the trial court upon a conflict of evidence will be sustained on appeal where there is any competent evidence to sustain the conviction

2. Intoxicating LiquorsBurden on Movant to Show Search and Seizure Illegal. Burden of proof is upon the movant who files motion to suppress evidence to show that a search and seizure of intoxicating liquor was illegal; and where movant does not sustain the burden of proof, it is the duty of the court to overrule such motion;

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Glen O. Morris, Judge.

Jack Franklin was convicted of the unlawful possession of whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Herbert K. Hyde and Carroll Samara, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Warren H. Edwards, Co. Atty., of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JONES, P. J. The defendant, Jack Franklin, was charged by information filed in the court of common pleas

Page 268

of Oklahoma county, with the unlawful possession of 93 pints of whisky; a jury was waived, the defendant was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail, and pay a fine of $50 and costs, and has appealed.

There was no appearance on behalf of the defendant at the time the case was assigned for oral argument and no briefs have been filed.

We have examined the record; the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The defendant presented a motion to suppress the evidence, but failed to sustain the burden of showing that the search by the officers was invalid.

The judgment and sentence of the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county is affirmed.

BAREFOOT and BRETT, JJ., concur.