Baker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Baker v. State

1914 OK CR 84, 139 P. 284, 10 Okla. Crim. 686, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 158

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 21, 1914

DocketNo. A-1962.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 84 (Baker 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

Baker v. State, 1914 OK CR 84, 139 P. 284, 10 Okla. Crim. 686, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 158 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Ilenry Baker, was convicted at the January, 1913, term of the superior court of Muskogee county on a. charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars, and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The only assignment argued on behalf of plaintiff in error is that the evidence introduced in the trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. We have carefully examined the' record and find that there is evidence sufficient to warrant the jury in reaching the conclusion they did in this case. In fact many convictions have been sustained on much slighter testimony. There is no error disclosed by the record and we would not be warranted in reversing this judgment on the ground that the evidence is insufficient. It is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Ilenry Baker, was convicted at the January, 1913, term of the superior court of Muskogee county on a. charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars, and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The only assignment argued on behalf of plaintiff in error is that the evidence introduced in the trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. We have carefully examined the' record and find that there is evidence sufficient to warrant the jury in reaching the conclusion they did in this case. In fact many convictions have been sustained on much slighter testimony. There is no error disclosed by the record and we would not be warranted in reversing this judgment on the ground that the evidence is insufficient. It is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 84, 139 P. 284, 10 Okla. Crim. 686, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.