Clary v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Clary v. State

1911 OK CR 333, 115 P. 1126, 6 Okla. Crim. 597, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 281

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 23, 1911

DocketNo. A-581.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1911 OK CR 333 (Clary 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

Clary v. State, 1911 OK CR 333, 115 P. 1126, 6 Okla. Crim. 597, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 281 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Seminole county court at the October, 1909, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The record in this ease discloses the fact that this was a very strenuous trial. The trial judge seems to have overlooked the fact that it was his duty to preside in a fair and impartial manner, and in a great many ways he was guilty of conduct prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. It would be a gross miscarriage of* justice to permit a conviction to stand, had under proceedings as are disclosed by this record. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Seminole county court at the October, 1909, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The record in this ease discloses the fact that this was a very strenuous trial. The trial judge seems to have overlooked the fact that it was his duty to preside in a fair and impartial manner, and in a great many ways he was guilty of conduct prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. It would be a gross miscarriage of* justice to permit a conviction to stand, had under proceedings as are disclosed by this record. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 333, 115 P. 1126, 6 Okla. Crim. 597, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clary-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack