Caveness v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Caveness v. State

1910 OK CR 99, 109 P. 125, 3 Okla. Crim. 729, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 232

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 21, 1910

DocketNo. 171.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1910 OK CR 99 (Caveness 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

Caveness v. State, 1910 OK CR 99, 109 P. 125, 3 Okla. Crim. 729, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 232 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BICHABDSON, Judge.

Before this cause was called for trial below plaintiff in error made and filed an affidavit in due form stating that the presiding judge was prejudiced against him, and that by reason thereof a fair and impartial trial could not' be had before said judge; and he prayed a change of judge.' The application was overruled, and an exception was taken. The trial was had before the passage of the Act approved March 22, 1909, relating to the disqualiification of judges (art. 6, chap. 26 of Snyder’s Comp. Laws of Okla.), and under the uniform holding of this court construing the law as it existed prior to the passage of said act, the court committed reversible error in refusing a change of judge.

The sale in this case, according to the state’s evidence, was *730 made to a deputy sheriff, who purchased the whisky as evidence upon which to base a prosecution. Plaintiff in error contends that in such case, the sale being solicited by an officer and agent of the state, a prosecution therefor cannot be maintained. This is not true. De Graff v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 519, 103 Pac. 538.

For the error indicated the cause is reversed and remanded with- directions to set aside the judgment and grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge,_ concur.

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

BICHABDSON, Judge.

Before this cause was called for trial below plaintiff in error made and filed an affidavit in due form stating that the presiding judge was prejudiced against him, and that by reason thereof a fair and impartial trial could not' be had before said judge; and he prayed a change of judge.' The application was overruled, and an exception was taken. The trial was had before the passage of the Act approved March 22, 1909, relating to the disqualiification of judges (art. 6, chap. 26 of Snyder’s Comp. Laws of Okla.), and under the uniform holding of this court construing the law as it existed prior to the passage of said act, the court committed reversible error in refusing a change of judge.

The sale in this case, according to the state’s evidence, was *730 made to a deputy sheriff, who purchased the whisky as evidence upon which to base a prosecution. Plaintiff in error contends that in such case, the sale being solicited by an officer and agent of the state, a prosecution therefor cannot be maintained. This is not true. De Graff v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 519, 103 Pac. 538.

For the error indicated the cause is reversed and remanded with- directions to set aside the judgment and grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge,_ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 99, 109 P. 125, 3 Okla. Crim. 729, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caveness-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack