Williams v. Commonwealth

Charles "Red" WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky

Williams v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.2d 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962)

Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided: March 16, 1962
Judges: Palmore
Citations: 355 S.W.2d 3021962 Ky. LEXIS 65

Cited by 8

Opinion of the Court — Palmore

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PALMORE, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor in local option territory. The incriminating evidence was obtained by virtue of a search warrant. The affidavit supporting the warrant was based on information given to the affiant by another. It stated that the named informant told affiant that appellant “has in his possession at this time beer and whiskey in said dwelling home for the purpose of sale.”

Even before the decision in Henson v. Com., Ky.1961, 347 S.W.2d 546 , which declared the same rule applicable to affidavits based on the affiant’s personal observation, it was well settled that an affidavit based on information or belief is defective unless-it discloses when the observation was made by the informant. See Com. v. Dincler, 1923, 201 Ky. 129 , 255 S.W. 1042 ; Abraham v. Com., 1924, 202 Ky. 491 , 260 S.W. 18 ; Van Hook v. Com., 1933, 247 Ky. 81 , 56 S.W.2d 702 ; Barton v. Com., 1935, 257 Ky. 419 , 78 S.W.2d 310 ; Duncan v. Com., 1944, 297 Ky. 217 , 179 S.W.2d 899 ; and Webb v. Com., Ky.1960, 339 S.W.2d 177 . Hence the warrant in this case fails for lack of a sufficient supporting affidavit, and the evidence obtained through it was inadmissible.

It appears from the testimony that the informant, Morris, had bought- liquor from' the appellant at the latter’s house earlier *303 during the same evening in which the affidavit was made. It would have been no more burdensome to say so in the affidavit than it has been to say it here.

Motion for appeal sustained and judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Samuel Rosencranz v. United States of America, Anthony Dipietro v. United States356 F.2d 310 (1st Cir. 1966)
Walker v. State275 So. 2d 724 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
Johnson v. Commonwealth443 S.W.2d 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)
Gossett v. Commonwealth426 S.W.2d 485 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968)
Bruce v. Commonwealth418 S.W.2d 645 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967)
United States v. Romano241 F. Supp. 933 (D. Me. 1965)

Most recent

Walker v. State275 So. 2d 724 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
Johnson v. Commonwealth443 S.W.2d 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)
Gossett v. Commonwealth426 S.W.2d 485 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968)
Bruce v. Commonwealth418 S.W.2d 645 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967)
Samuel Rosencranz v. United States of America, Anthony Dipietro v. United States356 F.2d 310 (1st Cir. 1966)
United States v. Romano241 F. Supp. 933 (D. Me. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Abraham v. Commonwealth, 260 S.W. 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)	18
	Duncan v. Commonwealth, 179 S.W.2d 899 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944)	10
	Barton v. Commonwealth, 78 S.W.2d 310 (Ky. Ct. App. 1935)	6
	Commonwealth v. Dincler, 255 S.W. 1042 (Ky. Ct. App. 1923)	6
	Henson v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.2d 546 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961)	15
	Vanhook v. Commonwealth, 56 S.W.2d 702 (Ky. Ct. App. 1933)	9
	Webb v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.2d 177 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list