Couch v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Couch v. State

1910 OK CR 23, 106 P. 351, 3 Okla. Crim. 415, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 21, 1910

DocketNo. A-41.

StatusPublished

This text of 1910 OK CR 23 (Couch 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

Couch v. State, 1910 OK CR 23, 106 P. 351, 3 Okla. Crim. 415, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

It appears from the record in this case, that, prior to the beginning of the trial, the plaintiff in error filed his application .in the form of an affidavit, alleging that the county judge was so prejudiced, against him that he could not have a fair- and impartial trial before said judge. This application was supported by the affidavit of three other persons. The court overruled the application and proceeded, over the objection of the defendant, to trjr the case. Counsel to the Governor representing the state in this case,.before this.court, has filed his,written confession of error conceding the court erred in overruling the application of plaintiff in error for a change of judge. Following the rule announced by this court in the case of Buchanan v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 126, 101 Pac. 295, the confession of error must be sustained and the ease reversed.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case remanded, with direction to set aside the judgment, grant the defendant a new trial, and. sustain his application for change of judge.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, And DOYLE,'Judge, concur-

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

OWEN, Judge.

It appears from the record in this case, that, prior to the beginning of the trial, the plaintiff in error filed his application .in the form of an affidavit, alleging that the county judge was so prejudiced, against him that he could not have a fair- and impartial trial before said judge. This application was supported by the affidavit of three other persons. The court overruled the application and proceeded, over the objection of the defendant, to trjr the case. Counsel to the Governor representing the state in this case,.before this.court, has filed his,written confession of error conceding the court erred in overruling the application of plaintiff in error for a change of judge. Following the rule announced by this court in the case of Buchanan v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 126, 101 Pac. 295, the confession of error must be sustained and the ease reversed.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case remanded, with direction to set aside the judgment, grant the defendant a new trial, and. sustain his application for change of judge.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, And DOYLE,'Judge, concur-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 23, 106 P. 351, 3 Okla. Crim. 415, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/couch-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack