Dulaney v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Dulaney v. State

1915 OK CR 77, 145 P. 1166, 11 Okla. Crim. 689, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 78

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1915

DocketNo. A-2160.

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK CR 77 (Dulaney 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

Dulaney v. State, 1915 OK CR 77, 145 P. 1166, 11 Okla. Crim. 689, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 78 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging the unlawful conveyance of~ intoxicating liquors. On the 17th day of October, 1913, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for a *690 term of ninety days and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs. Upon a careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error was committed on his trial, nor have we any reason to doubt that the verdict was reached only upon a fair and full consideration of the case by the jury. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging the unlawful conveyance of~ intoxicating liquors. On the 17th day of October, 1913, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for a *690 term of ninety days and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs. Upon a careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error was committed on his trial, nor have we any reason to doubt that the verdict was reached only upon a fair and full consideration of the case by the jury. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK CR 77, 145 P. 1166, 11 Okla. Crim. 689, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dulaney-v-state-oklacrimapp-1915.