Cowan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cowan v. State

1929 OK CR 114, 275 P. 1070, 42 Okla. Crim. 316, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 370

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 6, 1929

DocketNo. A-6521.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1929 OK CR 114 (Cowan 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

Cowan v. State, 1929 OK CR 114, 275 P. 1070, 42 Okla. Crim. 316, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 370 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Blaine county of the crime of grand larceny, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of one year. The defefndant was charged with the larceny of sheep of the value of $90. The record discloses that the defendant admitted the larceny of the property set out in the information prior to the trial of the case, and this confession was testified to at the trial. The defendant did not take the witness stand.

The brief filed on behalf of defendant does not cite a single authority upon the propositions advanced *317 for a reversal of the judgment. On the assignment of error, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction and that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, no abstract of evidence is made, and no argument is presented to show wherein the evidence fails to sustain the verdict of guilty. Counsel states that the evidence is “too voluminous to be abstracted” and requests the court, “to read and consider it;” thus politely placing on this court the burden of searching the record to determine if the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Reeves v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 351, 101 P. 1039, this court says in the syllabus:

“Questions not fully presented in the briefs of counsel will not be considered upon appeal, unless they relate to fundamental matters. It is the duty of counsel upon appeal to this court, who complain of errors in the proceedings of trial courts, to place their fingers upon the place that hurts, and clearly point out the errors complained of.”

Where counsel cites no authorities and points out no substantial defects, this court will examine the record for errors affecting the substantial rights of the defendant, and, finding none, will affirm the case.

While the information is not skillfully drawn, it is sufficient to charge the offense of grand larceny, and, no errors of law appearing upon the record sufficient to justify a reversal, 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 plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Blaine county of the crime of grand larceny, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of one year. The defefndant was charged with the larceny of sheep of the value of $90. The record discloses that the defendant admitted the larceny of the property set out in the information prior to the trial of the case, and this confession was testified to at the trial. The defendant did not take the witness stand.

The brief filed on behalf of defendant does not cite a single authority upon the propositions advanced *317 for a reversal of the judgment. On the assignment of error, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction and that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, no abstract of evidence is made, and no argument is presented to show wherein the evidence fails to sustain the verdict of guilty. Counsel states that the evidence is “too voluminous to be abstracted” and requests the court, “to read and consider it;” thus politely placing on this court the burden of searching the record to determine if the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Reeves v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 351, 101 P. 1039, this court says in the syllabus:

“Questions not fully presented in the briefs of counsel will not be considered upon appeal, unless they relate to fundamental matters. It is the duty of counsel upon appeal to this court, who complain of errors in the proceedings of trial courts, to place their fingers upon the place that hurts, and clearly point out the errors complained of.”

Where counsel cites no authorities and points out no substantial defects, this court will examine the record for errors affecting the substantial rights of the defendant, and, finding none, will affirm the case.

While the information is not skillfully drawn, it is sufficient to charge the offense of grand larceny, and, no errors of law appearing upon the record sufficient to justify a reversal, the cause is affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 114, 275 P. 1070, 42 Okla. Crim. 316, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack