Epperson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Epperson v. State

1925 OK CR 291, 236 P. 442, 31 Okla. Crim. 17, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 286

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 6, 1925

DocketNo. A-5015.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 291 (Epperson 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

Epperson v. State, 1925 OK CR 291, 236 P. 442, 31 Okla. Crim. 17, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 286 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

In the information in this case, Kink Ep-person and Verna Epperson, his wife, were charged with possession of intoxicating liquor, with the unlawful intent to sell the same. On their trial the jury returned a verdict, finding Verna Epperson not guilty, and finding Kink Ep-person guilty as charged in the information, leaving his punishment to the court. November 19, 1923, the court pronounced judgment and sentenced the defendant Kink Epperson to be confined in the county jail for six months and to pay a fine of $500 and the costs. From the judgment he appeals, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made on his behalf in this court.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; the rulings of the court on the admission and rejection of testimony.

The undisputed facts are that John Stout, city marshal of Picher, arrested the defendant on complaint of his wife for occupying a room in a local hotel with another woman; she then in the presence of the defendant stated to the officer that she wanted him to come down to their house and get his plant, and the defendant said, “Go ahead; I will take that jolt.”

The city marshal testified that he with two or three other officers went to the defendant’s home in Picher and found eight or nine bottles of whisky in an outhouse on the lot. The defendant did not testify.

An examination of the record fails to disclose any error in the admission or rejection of evidence, or in the instructions given to the jury, and the evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict.

*19 The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

In the information in this case, Kink Ep-person and Verna Epperson, his wife, were charged with possession of intoxicating liquor, with the unlawful intent to sell the same. On their trial the jury returned a verdict, finding Verna Epperson not guilty, and finding Kink Ep-person guilty as charged in the information, leaving his punishment to the court. November 19, 1923, the court pronounced judgment and sentenced the defendant Kink Epperson to be confined in the county jail for six months and to pay a fine of $500 and the costs. From the judgment he appeals, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made on his behalf in this court.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; the rulings of the court on the admission and rejection of testimony.

The undisputed facts are that John Stout, city marshal of Picher, arrested the defendant on complaint of his wife for occupying a room in a local hotel with another woman; she then in the presence of the defendant stated to the officer that she wanted him to come down to their house and get his plant, and the defendant said, “Go ahead; I will take that jolt.”

The city marshal testified that he with two or three other officers went to the defendant’s home in Picher and found eight or nine bottles of whisky in an outhouse on the lot. The defendant did not testify.

An examination of the record fails to disclose any error in the admission or rejection of evidence, or in the instructions given to the jury, and the evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict.

*19 The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 291, 236 P. 442, 31 Okla. Crim. 17, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epperson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.