Conley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Conley v. State

1930 OK CR 134, 287 P. 1059, 47 Okla. Crim. 36, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 326

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 29, 1930

DocketNo. A-7287.

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 134 (Conley 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

Conley v. State, 1930 OK CR 134, 287 P. 1059, 47 Okla. Crim. 36, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 326 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The. plaintiff- in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Kiowa county, of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and was sentencced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

. The case was tried in October, 1928, and the appeal was lodged in this court in February, 1929. No’ briefs in support of the appeal have been filed. The record discloses that with a search warrant certain officers searched the residence of defendant, and found a large quantity of bottled home-brew and a quantity unbottled and seven gallons of wine, the most of it being concealed under the floor which was reached by means of a trap door over which was a carpet. Defendant admitted the possession, but testified that this had been made for the use of his wife who was an invalid. The state offered evidence that at the time of the search defendant told one of the officers that he was making a part of this for two- different individuals, naming them. The evidence reasonably sustains the verdict, and no fundamental error is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The. plaintiff- in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Kiowa county, of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and was sentencced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

. The case was tried in October, 1928, and the appeal was lodged in this court in February, 1929. No’ briefs in support of the appeal have been filed. The record discloses that with a search warrant certain officers searched the residence of defendant, and found a large quantity of bottled home-brew and a quantity unbottled and seven gallons of wine, the most of it being concealed under the floor which was reached by means of a trap door over which was a carpet. Defendant admitted the possession, but testified that this had been made for the use of his wife who was an invalid. The state offered evidence that at the time of the search defendant told one of the officers that he was making a part of this for two- different individuals, naming them. The evidence reasonably sustains the verdict, and no fundamental error is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK CR 134, 287 P. 1059, 47 Okla. Crim. 36, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.