Driggers v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Driggers v. State

1929 OK CR 4, 273 P. 282, 41 Okla. Crim. 330, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 5, 1929

DocketNo. A-6346.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 4 (Driggers 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

Driggers v. State, 1929 OK CR 4, 273 P. 282, 41 Okla. Crim. 330, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Cotton county on a charge of manufacturing mash fit for distillation for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor.

The record discloses that one Flipo was arrested in possession of a copper still and 200 gallons of mash, the same as that upon which the charge here *331 is predicated. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve a term in the county jail. After he had been in jail some time, he informed the sheriff and county attorney that defendant and one Jim Johnson and two parties by the name of Calfey were the owners of the still and mash, and that he was employed to. operate the still, and that in case of arrest he was to take the responsibility. Defendant and Johnson were informed against, tried, and convicted in the instant case. The verdict was set aside as to Johnson.

It is first contended that the conviction rests entirely on the testimony of Flipo and the two Calfeys; that by their testimony they are accomplices and that there is no corroboration of their testimony, and for that reason the conviction cannot stand. An examination of the record discloses that the only incriminating evidence is that of Flipo and the two Calfeys. These witnesses were accomplices of defendants, and were so recognized by the trial judge, who instructed the jury that they were accomplices. The testimony of all of them indicates that they are perjurers, ready to swéar falsely when they deemed it to their interest to' do so. The Calfeys were unwilling witnesses, and evidently receded from their statements made to the county attorney. The county attorney apparently was in the situation that he was unable to procure any credible testimony to corroborate these accomplices in those matters connecting defendant with the crime.

Since we must follow the plain provisions of the law as embodied in section 2701, Comp. St. 1921, and the many decisions of this court in conformity with it, the case is reversed and remanded.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Cotton county on a charge of manufacturing mash fit for distillation for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor.

The record discloses that one Flipo was arrested in possession of a copper still and 200 gallons of mash, the same as that upon which the charge here *331 is predicated. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve a term in the county jail. After he had been in jail some time, he informed the sheriff and county attorney that defendant and one Jim Johnson and two parties by the name of Calfey were the owners of the still and mash, and that he was employed to. operate the still, and that in case of arrest he was to take the responsibility. Defendant and Johnson were informed against, tried, and convicted in the instant case. The verdict was set aside as to Johnson.

It is first contended that the conviction rests entirely on the testimony of Flipo and the two Calfeys; that by their testimony they are accomplices and that there is no corroboration of their testimony, and for that reason the conviction cannot stand. An examination of the record discloses that the only incriminating evidence is that of Flipo and the two Calfeys. These witnesses were accomplices of defendants, and were so recognized by the trial judge, who instructed the jury that they were accomplices. The testimony of all of them indicates that they are perjurers, ready to swéar falsely when they deemed it to their interest to' do so. The Calfeys were unwilling witnesses, and evidently receded from their statements made to the county attorney. The county attorney apparently was in the situation that he was unable to procure any credible testimony to corroborate these accomplices in those matters connecting defendant with the crime.

Since we must follow the plain provisions of the law as embodied in section 2701, Comp. St. 1921, and the many decisions of this court in conformity with it, the case is reversed and remanded.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 4, 273 P. 282, 41 Okla. Crim. 330, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driggers-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.