Eckart v. Territory of Oklahoma

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Eckart v. Territory of Oklahoma

1905 OK 9, 79 P. 755, 15 Okla. 197, 1905 Okla. LEXIS 19

DecidedFebruary 11, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 1905 OK 9 (Eckart v. Territory of Oklahoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eckart v. Territory of Oklahoma, 1905 OK 9, 79 P. 755, 15 Okla. 197, 1905 Okla. LEXIS 19 (Okla. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of tlie court by

Burwell, J.:

The defendant was convicted for stealing a mare. The insufficiency of the evidence is the sole complaint of the appellant; and although the evidence is brief, it is positive as to certain facts which indicate guilt. It establishes, together with other circumstances, that the mare was stolen; that she was traced by her tracks from the place from which she was stolen to a certain pasture in which she was found, that the defendant, although not in the actual possession of the animal, was taken to the pasture referred to, and he then and there stated that the mare belonged to him, and forbade another man to ride her. He offered no explanation as to how she became his property. In fact, he offered no defense at all. Considering the evidence as a whole, it is such as to reasonably lead an unprejudiced mind to a belief that the defendant was the thief; and, although it was circumstantial, it covered every material point in the case. It was sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Beauchamp, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting-; ail of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of tlie court by

Burwell, J.:

The defendant was convicted for stealing a mare. The insufficiency of the evidence is the sole complaint of the appellant; and although the evidence is brief, it is positive as to certain facts which indicate guilt. It establishes, together with other circumstances, that the mare was stolen; that she was traced by her tracks from the place from which she was stolen to a certain pasture in which she was found, that the defendant, although not in the actual possession of the animal, was taken to the pasture referred to, and he then and there stated that the mare belonged to him, and forbade another man to ride her. He offered no explanation as to how she became his property. In fact, he offered no defense at all. Considering the evidence as a whole, it is such as to reasonably lead an unprejudiced mind to a belief that the defendant was the thief; and, although it was circumstantial, it covered every material point in the case. It was sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Beauchamp, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting-; ail of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1905 OK 9, 79 P. 755, 15 Okla. 197, 1905 Okla. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckart-v-territory-of-oklahoma-okla-1905.