Legal Opinion

Franklin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided May 15, 1926No. A-5504PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBessey, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was found guilty of the illegal possession of a quantity of mash fit .for distillation, with his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and 30 days in jail.

The evidence in this case was procured by means of a search and seizure made in the nighttime at the home of the plaintiff in error. The search warrant was predicated upon the following affidavit:

“Now comes Clyde Hawkins and informs the court that he has good reason to believe that one F. T. Franklin has in his possession and stored away on his premises located at Ryal township in -, Okla., and known as-house,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gore v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1923
  2. Hannan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
  3. Foster v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1924
  4. Reutlinger v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
  5. Russell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1923

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bull v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
  2. Thomas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API