Camp v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Camp v. State

1929 OK CR 296, 279 P. 692, 44 Okla. Crim. 70, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 6

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 27, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1929 OK CR 296 (Camp 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

Camp v. State, 1929 OK CR 296, 279 P. 692, 44 Okla. Crim. 70, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 6 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Carter county on a charge of having possession of mash, wort, and wash, and his punishment -fixed at fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

It is contended that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The state produced Jess Salyers and Sid Jackson, who testified that they found two 50-gallon barrels of what you call mash to make liquor out of; that the defendant and his father lived about one-half mile apart, and that the barrels were located about halfway between the two houses; that they watched the barrels at night for a week and *71 never saw the defendant near the barrels nor having anything to do with them. There is no evidence in the record to show that the defendant knew any barrels were there or that he had any interest in them or control over them. The connty attorney should never have permitted the case to go to trial. When the evidence of the state was introduced it was the duty of the trial court to advise the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. It would save expense to the state and expediate the business of the courts if county attorneys and trial judges would dismiss such cases as this without permitting them to come to trial.

For the reasons stated the cause is reversed.

DAVENPORT, J., concurs. EDWARDS, P. J., not participating.

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

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Carter county on a charge of having possession of mash, wort, and wash, and his punishment -fixed at fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

It is contended that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The state produced Jess Salyers and Sid Jackson, who testified that they found two 50-gallon barrels of what you call mash to make liquor out of; that the defendant and his father lived about one-half mile apart, and that the barrels were located about halfway between the two houses; that they watched the barrels at night for a week and *71 never saw the defendant near the barrels nor having anything to do with them. There is no evidence in the record to show that the defendant knew any barrels were there or that he had any interest in them or control over them. The connty attorney should never have permitted the case to go to trial. When the evidence of the state was introduced it was the duty of the trial court to advise the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. It would save expense to the state and expediate the business of the courts if county attorneys and trial judges would dismiss such cases as this without permitting them to come to trial.

For the reasons stated the cause is reversed.

DAVENPORT, J., concurs. EDWARDS, P. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 296, 279 P. 692, 44 Okla. Crim. 70, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camp-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack