Caldwell v. State

1931 OK CR 227, 299 P. 1083, 50 Okla. Crim. 449, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 202
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Caldwell v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 50 Okla. Crim. 13
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided May 9, 1931·No. No. A-7853.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the record discloses that the state offered no witness who claimed to have seen defendant with the whisky, or to having seen him transport it, nor does the evidence of the state show any definite evidence of the whisky being transported from one place to another.

*450 Under the rule announced in Smith v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 293, 246 Pac. 261; Brown v. State, 18 Okla. Cr. 509, 196 Pac. 967; Aycock v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 302, 240 Pac. 1081; Jones v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 195, 264 Pac. 638; and Slayton v. State, 45 Okla. Cr. 283, 283 Pac. 258 — the evidence of the state was wholly insufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

For the reasons stated, the cause is reversed.

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

Caldwell v. State, 1931 OK CR 227, 299 P. 1083, 50 Okla. Crim. 449, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 202 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

1931 OK CR 227 (Caldwell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southworth v. Huffaker
246 P. 261 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1926)
Slayton v. State
1929 OK CR 533 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1929)
Jones v. State
1928 OK CR 89 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1928)
Aycock v. State
1925 OK CR 558 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1925)
Brown v. State
1921 OK CR 52 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1921)
Smith v. State
1926 OK CR 231 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1926)