Arnold v. State

1918 OK CR 171, 175 P. 947, 15 Okla. Crim. 228, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 59
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 23, 1918
DocketNo. A-3015.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1918 OK CR 171 (Arnold v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. State, 1918 OK CR 171, 175 P. 947, 15 Okla. Crim. 228, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

On information filed in the county court of Choctaw county, charging that Samuel Arnold, in said county on or about the 13th day of February, 1917, did have in his possession one (Juart of whisky bearing the label “Joel B. Frazier,” with the unlawful purpose and intent to sell same, the plaintiff in error was convicted, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for six months and a fine of $500. He has appealed from the judgment entered upon such conviction.

The first assignment of error is that • the verdict of the jury is not supported by sufficient evidence. The only testimony is that introduced by the state. It is as follows:

Ben Fitzgerald testified :

“I am sheriff of Choctaw county. On the 13th day of February, 1917, I went to the home of the defendant, Sam' *229 Arnold, and searched his house, and found one quart of whisky concealed in a box covered with a tow sack under the floor of the'house and under a little trap door. I had information he had whisky hid in this place.”

Thereupon the state rested, and the defendant demurred to the evidence and requested the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Which request was overruled; exception reserved.

The defendant may be guilty as charged, but there is not sufficient evidence to authorize his conviction under the law., There is no testimony tending to show the unlawful intent to sell, and for this reason the court should have sustained the motion to direct a verdict of acquittal.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rollins v. State
1929 OK CR 223 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1918 OK CR 171, 175 P. 947, 15 Okla. Crim. 228, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.