Duca v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Duca v. State

1920 OK CR 128, 192 P. 1105, 18 Okla. Crim. 711, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 188

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 22, 1920

DocketA-3217

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 128 (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, 1920 OK CR 128, 192 P. 1105, 18 Okla. Crim. 711, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 188 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER OURIAM.

Joe Duca and Mrs. Joe Duca were jointly indicted by tbe grand jury for selling whisky to one Erank White. The cause was duly transferred from the district court to the county court. Upon their trial they were convicted, and in accordance with the verdict were each sentenced to he confined for!30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $50. Prom the judgments they appeal.-

The principal contention is that the evidence does not support the verdict. Prank White, the only witness for the state, testified that at the time alleged he was chief of police of Hartshorne, where the defendants lived, and at that time bought a pint of whisky from Mrs. Joe Duca and paid her $1.50 for it, and that the mayor of Hartshorne was present at the time. Pie was then, asked. “Was Joe Duca there?” and answered: “I don’t think he was. If he was I did not see him in the house.” The state rested, and the- defendant Joe Duca' moved the court to direct a verdict of acquittal, “for the reason there is not sufficient evidence to convict said Joe Duca.” As witness in their own behalf, the defendants each testified that they did not sell any whisky to Prank White.

Obviously, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of Joe Duca. While the testimony of the complaining witness that be bought! the whisky of Mrs. Joe Duca is contradicted by the testimony of both of the defendants, yet the jury werei the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and they have seen fit to believe the complaining witness, -and'wei find no sufficient reason, to disturb their finding as to the defendant Mrs. Joe Duca.

Por the reason -stated, the judgment is reversed as-to Joe Duca and is affirmed as to Mrs. Joe Duca.

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

PER OURIAM.

Joe Duca and Mrs. Joe Duca were jointly indicted by tbe grand jury for selling whisky to one Erank White. The cause was duly transferred from the district court to the county court. Upon their trial they were convicted, and in accordance with the verdict were each sentenced to he confined for!30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $50. Prom the judgments they appeal.-

The principal contention is that the evidence does not support the verdict. Prank White, the only witness for the state, testified that at the time alleged he was chief of police of Hartshorne, where the defendants lived, and at that time bought a pint of whisky from Mrs. Joe Duca and paid her $1.50 for it, and that the mayor of Hartshorne was present at the time. Pie was then, asked. “Was Joe Duca there?” and answered: “I don’t think he was. If he was I did not see him in the house.” The state rested, and the- defendant Joe Duca' moved the court to direct a verdict of acquittal, “for the reason there is not sufficient evidence to convict said Joe Duca.” As witness in their own behalf, the defendants each testified that they did not sell any whisky to Prank White.

Obviously, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of Joe Duca. While the testimony of the complaining witness that be bought! the whisky of Mrs. Joe Duca is contradicted by the testimony of both of the defendants, yet the jury werei the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and they have seen fit to believe the complaining witness, -and'wei find no sufficient reason, to disturb their finding as to the defendant Mrs. Joe Duca.

Por the reason -stated, the judgment is reversed as-to Joe Duca and is affirmed as to Mrs. Joe Duca.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 128, 192 P. 1105, 18 Okla. Crim. 711, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duca-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.