From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Mar 16, 1962
355 S.W.2d 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962)

Summary

In Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 1962, 355 S.W.2d 302, where the affidavit alleged that defendant "has in his possession at this time beer and whiskey * * * for the purpose of sale", the court held that it was defective for not disclosing when the underlying observation was made.

Summary of this case from Rosencranz v. United States

Opinion

March 16, 1962.

Appeal from the Knox Circuit Court, Sampson B. Knuckles, J.

Wm. R. Forester, Harlan, for appellant.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Montague, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


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 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.


Summaries of

Williams v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Mar 16, 1962
355 S.W.2d 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962)

In Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 1962, 355 S.W.2d 302, where the affidavit alleged that defendant "has in his possession at this time beer and whiskey * * * for the purpose of sale", the court held that it was defective for not disclosing when the underlying observation was made.

Summary of this case from Rosencranz v. United States

In Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 355 S.W.2d 302 (1962), we said it is 4' well settled that an affidavit based on information or belief is defective unless it discloses when the observation was made by the informant.

Summary of this case from Bruce v. Commonwealth

In Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 355 S.W.2d 302, it was pointed out that even before the Henson case, it was the rule that when an affidavit is based on information or belief, it must disclose when the observation was made by the informant.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Davenport
Case details for

Williams v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:Charles "Red" WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Date published: Mar 16, 1962

Citations

355 S.W.2d 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962)

Citing Cases

United States v. Romano

This Court recognizes that other courts have held affidavits defective on the ground that they did not…

Rosencranz v. United States

While not the only reason for its decision, the court indicated that the absence of time allegation would…