Buchanan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Buchanan v. State

1925 OK CR 347, 237 P. 624, 31 Okla. Crim. 94, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 339

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 27, 1925

DocketNo. A-4853.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 347 (Buchanan 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

Buchanan v. State, 1925 OK CR 347, 237 P. 624, 31 Okla. Crim. 94, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 339 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error appeals from the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $200 and 5 months in the county jail. Various assignments of error are made in the petition in error, being principally directed to the contention that the municipal criminal court of Tulsa is unconstitutional. This contention has heretofore been decided adverse to the defendant (Buchanan v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 362, 236 P. 903), and will not be further adverted to here.

No briefs have been filed in this case, but the court is advised that the brief filed in the case last referred to should be considered in this case. We have examined the record, ¿nd find that the evidence amply supports the verdict. There is no error apparent that would require reversal. The case is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error appeals from the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $200 and 5 months in the county jail. Various assignments of error are made in the petition in error, being principally directed to the contention that the municipal criminal court of Tulsa is unconstitutional. This contention has heretofore been decided adverse to the defendant (Buchanan v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 362, 236 P. 903), and will not be further adverted to here.

No briefs have been filed in this case, but the court is advised that the brief filed in the case last referred to should be considered in this case. We have examined the record, ¿nd find that the evidence amply supports the verdict. There is no error apparent that would require reversal. The case is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 347, 237 P. 624, 31 Okla. Crim. 94, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack