Bonner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Bonner v. State

1923 OK CR 47, 212 P. 440, 23 Okla. Crim. 44, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 145

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 10, 1923

DocketNo. A-3996.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1923 OK CR 47 (Bonner 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

Bonner v. State, 1923 OK CR 47, 212 P. 440, 23 Okla. Crim. 44, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 145 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error, Jack Bonner, was convicted under an information; charging that, in Atoka county, on or about 10th day of October, 1919, he did make an assault upon and shoot with a, pistol one J. W. Wilbanks with the unlawful and felonious intent to kill the] said Wilbanks. The verdict of the jury wasi:

“We, the jury, drawn, impaneled, and sworn in the above entitled cause do upon our oath find the defendant, Jack Bonner, guilty, as charged in the information, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assess his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of three years.”

From the judgment rendered on the verdict, an appeal was taken by filing in this court on .June 10, 1921,' a petition in error with a transcript of the record proper; that is, the information, the instructions given, the verdict, the motion for new trial, and the judgment rendered. The only error assigned is that—

‘ ‘ The court erred in pronouncing judgment against the defendant for assault with a dangerous weapon for the reason that the information charged the defendant with ‘assault with intent to kill.’ ”

Upon the record before us, counsel for plaintiff in error has not properly raised the question. It was not made one of the grounds of the motion for new trial and there was no mo *46 tion in- arrest of judgment filed. The question is raised for the first time in this court. In fact the record before us contains no exception to any ruling of the court in the proceedings in this case.

Only prejudicial errors raised by exceptions reserved require a new trial, and it is only when we are satisfied that the -verdict was contrary to law, or to the evidence, or that injustice has been done that we are permitted to reverse a conviction, whether or not an exception has been taken in the trial court. In the absence of a transcript of they evidence, or any part -thereof in the record of this case, the presumption is that the ■evidence was amply sufficient as to the guilt of the defendant •of the offense charged.

It may be well for us to say here that under the holdings of this court the judgment is sufficient. Johnson v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 260, 154 Pac. 1004; Simmons v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 442, 177 Pac. 626.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is ¿affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error, Jack Bonner, was convicted under an information; charging that, in Atoka county, on or about 10th day of October, 1919, he did make an assault upon and shoot with a, pistol one J. W. Wilbanks with the unlawful and felonious intent to kill the] said Wilbanks. The verdict of the jury wasi:

“We, the jury, drawn, impaneled, and sworn in the above entitled cause do upon our oath find the defendant, Jack Bonner, guilty, as charged in the information, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assess his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of three years.”

From the judgment rendered on the verdict, an appeal was taken by filing in this court on .June 10, 1921,' a petition in error with a transcript of the record proper; that is, the information, the instructions given, the verdict, the motion for new trial, and the judgment rendered. The only error assigned is that—

‘ ‘ The court erred in pronouncing judgment against the defendant for assault with a dangerous weapon for the reason that the information charged the defendant with ‘assault with intent to kill.’ ”

Upon the record before us, counsel for plaintiff in error has not properly raised the question. It was not made one of the grounds of the motion for new trial and there was no mo *46 tion in- arrest of judgment filed. The question is raised for the first time in this court. In fact the record before us contains no exception to any ruling of the court in the proceedings in this case.

Only prejudicial errors raised by exceptions reserved require a new trial, and it is only when we are satisfied that the -verdict was contrary to law, or to the evidence, or that injustice has been done that we are permitted to reverse a conviction, whether or not an exception has been taken in the trial court. In the absence of a transcript of they evidence, or any part -thereof in the record of this case, the presumption is that the ■evidence was amply sufficient as to the guilt of the defendant •of the offense charged.

It may be well for us to say here that under the holdings of this court the judgment is sufficient. Johnson v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 260, 154 Pac. 1004; Simmons v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 442, 177 Pac. 626.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is ¿affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 47, 212 P. 440, 23 Okla. Crim. 44, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-state-oklacrimapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack