Arnold v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Arnold v. State

1927 OK CR 186, 258 P. 287, 37 Okla. Crim. 331, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 23, 1927

DocketNo. A-5782.

StatusPublished

This text of 1927 OK CR 186 (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, 1927 OK CR 186, 258 P. 287, 37 Okla. Crim. 331, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58 (Okla. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging that he did maintain a.nd operate a certain place where divers persons were permitted to congregate for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor, in Oklahoma City, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to pay a fine of *332 $250 and confinement in the county jail for 60 days. The judgment and sentence was entered on May 4, 1925. An appeal by case-made was filed in this court September 1st. No brief has been filed and no appearance made in behalf of plaintiff in error in this court, and when reached for final submission the case was submitted on the record.

In cases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. We have examined the information, the instructions of the court and the judgment and sentence, and we find no error which would warrant a reversal.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, J|J., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging that he did maintain a.nd operate a certain place where divers persons were permitted to congregate for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor, in Oklahoma City, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to pay a fine of *332 $250 and confinement in the county jail for 60 days. The judgment and sentence was entered on May 4, 1925. An appeal by case-made was filed in this court September 1st. No brief has been filed and no appearance made in behalf of plaintiff in error in this court, and when reached for final submission the case was submitted on the record.

In cases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. We have examined the information, the instructions of the court and the judgment and sentence, and we find no error which would warrant a reversal.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, J|J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK CR 186, 258 P. 287, 37 Okla. Crim. 331, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-oklacrimapp-1927.