(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error — Burden of Showing Error — Presumption as to Legality of Search Warrant. Error is not presumed, but must be made to affirmatively appear, and, where there is evidence that officers making a search acted under the authority of a search warrant, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that the warrant was properly issued upon a proper affidavit.

2. Trial — Waiver of Error by Failure to Object to Introduction of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Search and Seizure. When evidence is obtained under an illegal search and seizure, defendant should make timely objection to the introduction thereof; otherwise he will be deemed to have waived his right thereto.

3. Intoxicating Liquors — Proof of Possession of Prohibited Quantity of Liquor Under Prima Facie Evidence Rule. Where a defendant is charged with having possession of whisky with intent to sell, and there is proof of possession of the prohibited quantity, a sufficient case is proven to submit to the jury under the prima facie evidence rule, and, in the absence of unusual circumstances, the verdict will not be disturbed for insufficiency.

Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; Jas. C. Cheek, Judge.

James Triplitt was convicted of having possession of whisky with intent to sell, and appeals. Affirmed.

Page 376

Wright & Gill, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Short, Atty. Gen., for the State.

EDWARDS, J. From a conviction in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, the plaintiff in error, hereinafter styled defendant, has appealed.

The record discloses that on the 29th day of August, 1923, certain police officers of Oklahoma City went to the place of residence of the defendant with a search warrant, and upon a search found about five gallons of whisky in different containers hidden about the premises, which they labeled or had labeled, and which was then put in the booze room of the police department. The testimony was that the liquor seized was corn whisky, but, owing to some defect in the chain of possession, the whisky itself, although offered, was not admitted in evidence. The defendant did not testify, and offered no evidence.

The first contention is that the liquor was obtained by illegal means, in that there was no evidence that the search warrant was based upon a sufficient affidavit. It is further claimed that it was issued by a judge of the police court, and was therefore invalid under the holding of this court in the case of Terry v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 91, 237 P. 465. There is nothing in the record to sustain the argument made upon this point. If a defendant desires to object to evidence which he claims was procured by an illegal search, he must make timely objection; otherwise he will be deemed to have waived his right to object. Fields v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 121, 236 P. 633.

No objection was made to the evidence when offered, and no attempt made to show that the search warrant testified to was not based upon a proper affidavit or was issued by an officer not authorized to issue search warrants in the enforcement of the prohibitory law.

Page 377

Error is not presumed, but it must be made to affirmatively appear, and, when testimony is offered that officers acted under a search warrant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed that it was regularly issued upon a sufficient affidavit. Viadock v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 374, 236 P. 56.

The second contention is that the evidence is insufficient. The evidence, however, clearly shows the possession of the prohibited quantity of whisky, and, when that is shown under the prima facie evidence rule, the intent becomes a question of fact for the jury, and, in the absence of unusual circumstances, its verdict will not be disturbed. Cosby v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 294, 236 P. 51; McCoy v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 254, 238 P. 223; May v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 361, 238 P. 1003.

The third contention is based upon the court's instruction No. 8, in which the court informs the jury that certain glass jugs of whisky brought into the courtroom were excluded from its consideration, for the reason that the officers who seized the same had not complied with the law in making written reports and in failing to deliver the same to the sheriff and taking receipt. The jury was cautioned that the liquor is not in evidence and is not to be considered. This instruction is prolix in explaining to the jury in too much detail the reasons why the liquor offered was not admitted in evidence. But it is favorable to the defendant in instructing them that it is not in evidence and is not to be considered. It was not prejudicial.

From the record before us it appears that the defendant was fairly tried, the issues of law fairly submitted, and the verdict of the jury fully sustained by the evidence.

The case is affirmed.

BESSEY, P.J., and DOYLE, J., concur.