Cuneo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cuneo v. State

1919 OK CR 286, 182 P. 251, 16 Okla. Crim. 714, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 197

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided October 14, 1919·No. No. A-3232.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff In error, Joe Cuneo, was convicted on a charge that he did have possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and 30 days’ confinement in the county jail. From the judgment, he appeals.

The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The fact that the defendant did have possession of whisky at his place of business was undisputed, and it was for the jury to determine on the evidence in the case as to whether or not he intended to sell the same. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant did not have 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, Joe Cuneo, was convicted on a charge that he did have possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and 30 days’ confinement in the county jail. From the judgment, he appeals.

The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The fact that the defendant did have possession of whisky at his place of business was undisputed, and it was for the jury to determine on the evidence in the case as to whether or not he intended to sell the same. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant did not have a fair trial,

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cuneo v. State, 1919 OK CR 286, 182 P. 251, 16 Okla. Crim. 714, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

1919 OK CR 286 (Cuneo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.