Duca v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Duca v. State

1918 OK CR 162, 175 P. 943, 15 Okla. Crim. 208, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 54

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 23, 1918

DocketNo. A-3067.

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK CR 162 (Duca 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

Duca v. State, 1918 OK CR 162, 175 P. 943, 15 Okla. Crim. 208, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 54 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Pittsburg county, wherein the defendant, Joe Duca, was convicted.of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and serve 60 days in jail.

Numerous assignments of error are relied upon to reverse this judgment, but it is only necessary to consider *209 one, viz., that the court erred in refusing the defendant’s motion to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, because there was no evidence to support the allegations of the information.

The motion to direct the verdict in this case should have been sustained. An examination of the transcript of the evidence discloses that there is not a scintilla of competent evidence to prove that the defendant at any time had possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. It is impossible to conceive how a jury could have arrived at a verdict of guilty in this case. It may be surmised, however, that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice, coupled with the consideration of incompetent and hearsay testimony, improperly admitted over the objection and exception of the defendant.

There is an entire absence of proof of the corpus delicti. The judgment is reversed, with directions to dismiss the prosecution.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Pittsburg county, wherein the defendant, Joe Duca, was convicted.of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and serve 60 days in jail.

Numerous assignments of error are relied upon to reverse this judgment, but it is only necessary to consider *209 one, viz., that the court erred in refusing the defendant’s motion to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, because there was no evidence to support the allegations of the information.

The motion to direct the verdict in this case should have been sustained. An examination of the transcript of the evidence discloses that there is not a scintilla of competent evidence to prove that the defendant at any time had possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. It is impossible to conceive how a jury could have arrived at a verdict of guilty in this case. It may be surmised, however, that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice, coupled with the consideration of incompetent and hearsay testimony, improperly admitted over the objection and exception of the defendant.

There is an entire absence of proof of the corpus delicti. The judgment is reversed, with directions to dismiss the prosecution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 162, 175 P. 943, 15 Okla. Crim. 208, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duca-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.