Brown v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Brown v. State

1918 OK CR 55, 172 P. 1098, 14 Okla. Crim. 477, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 161

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 29, 1918

DocketNo. A-2928.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1918 OK CR 55 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 1918 OK CR 55, 172 P. 1098, 14 Okla. Crim. 477, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 161 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court- of Tulsa county of the unlawful posses *478 sion of intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell same, and his punishment was fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of 90 days and a fine of |150.

After a careful consideration of ,the record in this case, the court has reached the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed. There is evidence in the record that the defendant had in his possession a half pint of whisky, but there is an entire lack of evidence to establish on his part any intent to sell same. The defendant took the witness stand in his own behalf, and testified that this was the first time that he had ever been arrested or tried for violation of the prohibitory laws of this state. There was no material conflict between the evidence of the state and that of the defendant, except that the evidence on the part of the defendant explained the possession of the whisky, and the explanation made by the defendant and the owner of the building in which his place of business was located was not contradicted.

Considering the evidence as a whole, while same might tend strongly to establish a suspicion that the defendant was guilty, we are clearly convinced that the proof in this case on the question of intent is wholly lacking, and that it would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction to stand.

For this reason the judgment of conviction is reversed.

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 Tulsa county of the unlawful posses *478 sion of intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell same, and his punishment was fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of 90 days and a fine of |150.

After a careful consideration of ,the record in this case, the court has reached the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed. There is evidence in the record that the defendant had in his possession a half pint of whisky, but there is an entire lack of evidence to establish on his part any intent to sell same. The defendant took the witness stand in his own behalf, and testified that this was the first time that he had ever been arrested or tried for violation of the prohibitory laws of this state. There was no material conflict between the evidence of the state and that of the defendant, except that the evidence on the part of the defendant explained the possession of the whisky, and the explanation made by the defendant and the owner of the building in which his place of business was located was not contradicted.

Considering the evidence as a whole, while same might tend strongly to establish a suspicion that the defendant was guilty, we are clearly convinced that the proof in this case on the question of intent is wholly lacking, and that it would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction to stand.

For this reason the judgment of conviction is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 55, 172 P. 1098, 14 Okla. Crim. 477, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack