Canady v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Canady v. State

1911 OK CR 464, 124 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 658, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 546

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 4, 1911

DocketNo. A-1139.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 464 (Canady 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

Canady v. State, 1911 OK CR 464, 124 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 658, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 546 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because not perfected within the time required by law. Upon an examation of the record we do not think that this motion should be sustained. It is true that the testimony could be clearer and more convincing, but the issues were clearly submitted by the court to the jury, and we cannot say that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. Where there is any testimony in a reeord from which the jury could legitimately reach the conclusion of guilt, this court will not reverse a conviction. The appellant offered no testimony in his own behalf. Appellant reserved only a general exception to the charge of the court and does not attempt, in the brief filed by his counsel, to point out any material error in the record. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because not perfected within the time required by law. Upon an examation of the record we do not think that this motion should be sustained. It is true that the testimony could be clearer and more convincing, but the issues were clearly submitted by the court to the jury, and we cannot say that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. Where there is any testimony in a reeord from which the jury could legitimately reach the conclusion of guilt, this court will not reverse a conviction. The appellant offered no testimony in his own behalf. Appellant reserved only a general exception to the charge of the court and does not attempt, in the brief filed by his counsel, to point out any material error in the record. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 464, 124 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 658, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canady-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.