Childs v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Childs v. State

1929 OK CR 30, 273 P. 1016, 42 Okla. Crim. 36, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 304

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 26, 1929

DocketNo. A-6374.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 30 (Childs 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

Childs v. State, 1929 OK CR 30, 273 P. 1016, 42 Okla. Crim. 36, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 304 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Pottawatomie on a charge of burglary in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The information is drawn under the second subdivision of section 2063, Comp. St. 1921. A demurrer was interposed on the theory that the information is drawn under the first subdivision of said section, and that the information is insufficient for failure to allege that the smokehouse charged to have been broken and entered did not form a part of the dwelling house. The case was tried on the-theory that the charge in the information is under the second subdivision of section 2063, and that the allegation that the smokehouse was within the “curtilage of a' dwelling house” is mere surplusage. So considered, the information is sufficient, and there was no error in overruling the demurrer.

It is next argued that the court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance. The application *38 was based on the absence on business of one of defendant’s attorneys. Defendant was represented by his other counsel. The showing made was insufficient. Anderson v. State, 21 Okla. Cr. 193, 207 P. 977; Brooks v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 72, 240 P. 136; Coffey v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 91, 258 P. 923.

Complaint is also made that the court erred in his instruction on circumstantial evidence, being No. 8 of the court’s charge. This instruction, verbatim, was approved by this court in Carter v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 232, 118 P. 264, and has been before this court many times since. It is not erroneous.

It is not contended that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. We see no substantial merit in the assignments of error argued.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

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

EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Pottawatomie on a charge of burglary in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The information is drawn under the second subdivision of section 2063, Comp. St. 1921. A demurrer was interposed on the theory that the information is drawn under the first subdivision of said section, and that the information is insufficient for failure to allege that the smokehouse charged to have been broken and entered did not form a part of the dwelling house. The case was tried on the-theory that the charge in the information is under the second subdivision of section 2063, and that the allegation that the smokehouse was within the “curtilage of a' dwelling house” is mere surplusage. So considered, the information is sufficient, and there was no error in overruling the demurrer.

It is next argued that the court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance. The application *38 was based on the absence on business of one of defendant’s attorneys. Defendant was represented by his other counsel. The showing made was insufficient. Anderson v. State, 21 Okla. Cr. 193, 207 P. 977; Brooks v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 72, 240 P. 136; Coffey v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 91, 258 P. 923.

Complaint is also made that the court erred in his instruction on circumstantial evidence, being No. 8 of the court’s charge. This instruction, verbatim, was approved by this court in Carter v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 232, 118 P. 264, and has been before this court many times since. It is not erroneous.

It is not contended that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. We see no substantial merit in the assignments of error argued.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 30, 273 P. 1016, 42 Okla. Crim. 36, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childs-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack