Deere v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Deere v. State

1912 OK CR 334, 123 P. 1128, 7 Okla. Crim. 735, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 175

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 16, 1912

DocketNo. A-1399.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 334 (Deere 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

Deere v. State, 1912 OK CR 334, 123 P. 1128, 7 Okla. Crim. 735, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 175 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Elmer Deere, was convicted in June, 1911, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days. In the record the proof establishes the possession of beer at the residence of the accused. There is no other competent evidence in the record tending to establish the intent. The accused' in his own behalf testified that the beer was an interstate shipment for his own personal use kept in his home. This court has so often held that it is as essential for intent to be established by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as it is to establish the possession that we do not feel called upon to discuss the question at length here. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the court below to grant a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Elmer Deere, was convicted in June, 1911, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days. In the record the proof establishes the possession of beer at the residence of the accused. There is no other competent evidence in the record tending to establish the intent. The accused' in his own behalf testified that the beer was an interstate shipment for his own personal use kept in his home. This court has so often held that it is as essential for intent to be established by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as it is to establish the possession that we do not feel called upon to discuss the question at length here. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the court below to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 334, 123 P. 1128, 7 Okla. Crim. 735, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deere-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.