Brashear v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Brashear v. State

1912 OK CR 477, 119 P. 1129, 35 Okla. Crim. 389, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 470

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 27, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 477 (Brashear 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

Brashear v. State, 1912 OK CR 477, 119 P. 1129, 35 Okla. Crim. 389, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 470 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county, at the April, 1911, term, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $300, and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 60 days. The appeal was perfected in this court on the 21st day of June, 1911. A careful examination of the record in this case discloses facts upon which the jury could not have reached any other conclusion than that the defendant was guilty as charged. The instructions of the trial court are subject to criticism, but we do not think the errors therein are sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment. The court should follow the rule laid down in the case of Billingsley v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 597, 113 Pac. 241, and Hendrix v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 611, 113 Pac. 244. If this were a close case on the facts, the judgment would have to be reversed on the errors in the instruction of the court. The proof discloses the fact that the plaintiff in error had sold whisky at this identical place a short time before this offense is alleged to have been committed, and that he had paid the special revenue tax required by the United States government from retail liquor dealers, which in itself, together with possession, is sufficient to justify a conviction. Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county, at the April, 1911, term, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $300, and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 60 days. The appeal was perfected in this court on the 21st day of June, 1911. A careful examination of the record in this case discloses facts upon which the jury could not have reached any other conclusion than that the defendant was guilty as charged. The instructions of the trial court are subject to criticism, but we do not think the errors therein are sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment. The court should follow the rule laid down in the case of Billingsley v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 597, 113 Pac. 241, and Hendrix v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 611, 113 Pac. 244. If this were a close case on the facts, the judgment would have to be reversed on the errors in the instruction of the court. The proof discloses the fact that the plaintiff in error had sold whisky at this identical place a short time before this offense is alleged to have been committed, and that he had paid the special revenue tax required by the United States government from retail liquor dealers, which in itself, together with possession, is sufficient to justify a conviction. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 477, 119 P. 1129, 35 Okla. Crim. 389, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brashear-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack