Cheeves v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cheeves v. State

1932 OK CR 69, 9 P.2d 54, 53 Okla. Crim. 193, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 53

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 12, 1932

DocketNo. A-8284.

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK CR 69 (Cheeves 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

Cheeves v. State, 1932 OK CR 69, 9 P.2d 54, 53 Okla. Crim. 193, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 53 (Okla. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of one quart of whisky with intent to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish the same to others, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days.' Prom the judgment, the defendant appeals.

The testimony in this case shows that the officers went to the filling station owned by the defendant, which was situated about one hundred yards from the defendant’s home. In connection with the filling station, there was a cold drink stand. When the officers went to the filling station, the defendant was outside the building; they served .the search warrant upon him and went into the building; there were several parties inside the building; the officer-states the parties were drinking; a daughter of the defendant, who- was about fifteen years of age, went into another room with a sack in her hand and put it *194 down in a corner; the officers took possession of it, and it contained whisky.

The defendant contends he was not running the filling station, that his father was in possession and operating the cold drink stand, as well as the filling station.

The question of the possession of the whisky was a question for the jury under the evidence, which is conflicting. The jury found the defendant guilty. This court will not disturb the verdict of the jury, where there is any competent evidence to support the same.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

CHAPPELL, J., concurs. EDWARDS, J., not participating.

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

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of one quart of whisky with intent to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish the same to others, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days.' Prom the judgment, the defendant appeals.

The testimony in this case shows that the officers went to the filling station owned by the defendant, which was situated about one hundred yards from the defendant’s home. In connection with the filling station, there was a cold drink stand. When the officers went to the filling station, the defendant was outside the building; they served .the search warrant upon him and went into the building; there were several parties inside the building; the officer-states the parties were drinking; a daughter of the defendant, who- was about fifteen years of age, went into another room with a sack in her hand and put it *194 down in a corner; the officers took possession of it, and it contained whisky.

The defendant contends he was not running the filling station, that his father was in possession and operating the cold drink stand, as well as the filling station.

The question of the possession of the whisky was a question for the jury under the evidence, which is conflicting. The jury found the defendant guilty. This court will not disturb the verdict of the jury, where there is any competent evidence to support the same.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

CHAPPELL, J., concurs. EDWARDS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK CR 69, 9 P.2d 54, 53 Okla. Crim. 193, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheeves-v-state-oklacrimapp-1932.