Collins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Collins v. State

1930 OK CR 12, 288 P. 353, 46 Okla. Crim. 152, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 507

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 4, 1930

DocketNo. A-7003.

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 12 (Collins 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

Collins v. State, 1930 OK CR 12, 288 P. 353, 46 Okla. Crim. 152, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 507 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinions

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of McIntosh county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor, to wit, six gallons of whisky, and their punishment fixed at a fine of |50 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days for each of them.

The evidence of the state was that the officers went to the premises occupied by the defendants with a search warrant for the purpose of searching the premises. When the officers reached the house occupied by the defendant Seism, not finding the defendant at home, they tried to serve the copy of the warrant on a daughter of the defendant. She rushed to the back of the house and fired a gun apparently as a signal. The officers immediately left the house and scattered over the premises, and after a short time found a 50-gallon copper still with 6 gallons of whisky, 3 barrels of beer, some empty barrels and jugs. A team was in the orchard near the house with fresh tracks leading from the team to' the still, and also fresh tracks leading from the house of the defendant Collins, who lived on the same premises. The evidence of the state further shoWed that the tracks that led from the team to *154 the still were different from those that led from the home of Collins to the still.

The defendants denied that they were the owners of or in possession of the still, or that they knew anything about the liquor. The court instructed the jury properly on circumstantial evidence.

This court has repeatedly held that, where there is any competent evidence in the record supporting the verdict of the jury, a ndw trial will not be granted because of insufficient evidence. Adams v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 179, 277 Pac. 688; Miller v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 184, 277 Pac. 687; Burrows v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 256, 277 Pac. 685.

There being competent evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, the cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of McIntosh county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor, to wit, six gallons of whisky, and their punishment fixed at a fine of |50 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days for each of them.

The evidence of the state was that the officers went to the premises occupied by the defendants with a search warrant for the purpose of searching the premises. When the officers reached the house occupied by the defendant Seism, not finding the defendant at home, they tried to serve the copy of the warrant on a daughter of the defendant. She rushed to the back of the house and fired a gun apparently as a signal. The officers immediately left the house and scattered over the premises, and after a short time found a 50-gallon copper still with 6 gallons of whisky, 3 barrels of beer, some empty barrels and jugs. A team was in the orchard near the house with fresh tracks leading from the team to' the still, and also fresh tracks leading from the house of the defendant Collins, who lived on the same premises. The evidence of the state further shoWed that the tracks that led from the team to *154 the still were different from those that led from the home of Collins to the still.

The defendants denied that they were the owners of or in possession of the still, or that they knew anything about the liquor. The court instructed the jury properly on circumstantial evidence.

This court has repeatedly held that, where there is any competent evidence in the record supporting the verdict of the jury, a ndw trial will not be granted because of insufficient evidence. Adams v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 179, 277 Pac. 688; Miller v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 184, 277 Pac. 687; Burrows v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 256, 277 Pac. 685.

There being competent evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, the cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK CR 12, 288 P. 353, 46 Okla. Crim. 152, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack