Crump v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Crump v. State

1924 OK CR 239, 228 P. 1118, 28 Okla. Crim. 115, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 237

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 9, 1924

DocketNo. A-4606.

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK CR 239 (Crump 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

Crump v. State, 1924 OK CR 239, 228 P. 1118, 28 Okla. Crim. 115, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 237 (Okla. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

, Plaintiff in error, Roy Crump, was convicted on a charge that he did have in his possession whisky with the unlawful intent to sell the same. In accordance with, the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to pay a fine of *116 $250 and be confined in the county jail for 30 days. From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on March 21, 1923, a petition in error, with ease-made. No briefs have been filed. When the case was called for final submission, no appearance was made on behalf of plaintiff in error. The Attorney General has moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. An examination of the record discloses that the errors assigned are without merit. The plaintiff in error had a fair trial. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

, Plaintiff in error, Roy Crump, was convicted on a charge that he did have in his possession whisky with the unlawful intent to sell the same. In accordance with, the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to pay a fine of *116 $250 and be confined in the county jail for 30 days. From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on March 21, 1923, a petition in error, with ease-made. No briefs have been filed. When the case was called for final submission, no appearance was made on behalf of plaintiff in error. The Attorney General has moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. An examination of the record discloses that the errors assigned are without merit. The plaintiff in error had a fair trial. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK CR 239, 228 P. 1118, 28 Okla. Crim. 115, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crump-v-state-oklacrimapp-1924.