Baldwin v. State

1928 OK CR 144, 266 P. 795, 40 Okla. Crim. 7, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 113
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 18, 1928
DocketNo. A-6297.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1928 OK CR 144 (Baldwin 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
Baldwin v. State, 1928 OK CR 144, 266 P. 795, 40 Okla. Crim. 7, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 113 (Okla. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

This was an information in the district court of Tillman county, against S. G. Baldwin and Leonard Shaffer, in which the defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate provisions of the prohibitory liquor law. The defendants were tried jointly before a jury which returned a verdict finding them guilty as charged in the information and leaving the punishment to be fixed by the court. Motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled, and the court pronounced judgment on the 15th day of January, 1926, and sentenced the defendant Leonard Shaffer to pay a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days. The defendant S. G. Baldwin was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 2 years.

The information, in substance, charges that in Tillman county, on or about the 1st day of November, 1925, the defendants did unlawfully, willfully, corruptly combine, confederate, conspire, and agree together and with each other and with divers other persons to' informant unknown to engage in the business of selling spirituous, vinous, fermented, malt, and intoxicating liquors, and further alleges overt acts in furtherance of said conspiracy.

This is a companion case to that of Taylor v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 350, 261 P. 978. The record in this case is the same as the record in the Taylor Case so far as the jurisdiction of the trial court is concerned. See, also, Thomas et al. v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 379, 262 P. 503.

Upon the authority of the cases above cited, the judg *9 ment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to dismiss.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Stout
1949 OK CR 94 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1949)
Ashcraft v. State
1940 OK CR 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1928 OK CR 144, 266 P. 795, 40 Okla. Crim. 7, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1928.