Legal Opinion

Scogin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided May 14, 1937No. A-9179PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDavenport, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, for convenience referred to as the defendant, was by information charged with the crime of furnishing intoxicating liquor; was tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $300, and to be confined in the county jail for a period of 90 days.

It is not necessary for the court to consider the evidence as to whether or not the defendant had possession of liquor, but it is alleged in the information that he did have; for the reason that the officers in executing the search warrant did not search the property described in the search warrant. This is the only question…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. RykowskiDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1920
  2. United States v. Chin OnDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1924
  3. People v. MuskMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Miller v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926
  5. Preston v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1929

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Crossland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1954
  2. Hood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1950
  3. McCormick v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1964
  4. Flowers v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1949
  5. Ott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1939

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

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

Powered by the Exa API