Ault v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ault v. State

1917 OK CR 193, 168 P. 58, 14 Okla. Crim. 140, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 209

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 30, 1917

DocketNo. A-2428.

StatusPublished

This text of 1917 OK CR 193 (Ault 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

Ault v. State, 1917 OK CR 193, 168 P. 58, 14 Okla. Crim. 140, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 209 (Okla. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, Alfred Ault, was convicted of the theft of a horse, the property of Robert Ridenour, and in accordance with the verdict he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary at McAlester for the term of one year.

The only question presented by the record is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The evidence for the state was wholly circumstantial. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that on his way from Beaver county, Okla., to his homestead in Baca county, Colo., he bought the horse in question, that he was well acquainted with the horse owned by Robert Ridenour, and that it was not the same horse. Under our system of jurisprudence the jury are the exclusive judges of the facts proved and of the weight to be given to the testimony. Where the evidence for the state is circumstantial, and the circumstances are such as to reasonably justify an inference of guilt, the weight of such testimony is exclusively for the jury. It is only when such evidence obviously does not warrant an inference of guilt that the conviction will be set aside.

We think the verdict of a jury, based upon circumstantial evidence, comes to us as any other verdict. Un *142 less we can say the inference of guilt drawn from the evidence is wholly unwarranted, we will not interfere. That we cannot say in this case.. We think the evidence abundantly sustains the verdict.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment of the district court of Beaver county is affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, Alfred Ault, was convicted of the theft of a horse, the property of Robert Ridenour, and in accordance with the verdict he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary at McAlester for the term of one year.

The only question presented by the record is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The evidence for the state was wholly circumstantial. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that on his way from Beaver county, Okla., to his homestead in Baca county, Colo., he bought the horse in question, that he was well acquainted with the horse owned by Robert Ridenour, and that it was not the same horse. Under our system of jurisprudence the jury are the exclusive judges of the facts proved and of the weight to be given to the testimony. Where the evidence for the state is circumstantial, and the circumstances are such as to reasonably justify an inference of guilt, the weight of such testimony is exclusively for the jury. It is only when such evidence obviously does not warrant an inference of guilt that the conviction will be set aside.

We think the verdict of a jury, based upon circumstantial evidence, comes to us as any other verdict. Un *142 less we can say the inference of guilt drawn from the evidence is wholly unwarranted, we will not interfere. That we cannot say in this case.. We think the evidence abundantly sustains the verdict.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment of the district court of Beaver county is affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK CR 193, 168 P. 58, 14 Okla. Crim. 140, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ault-v-state-oklacrimapp-1917.