Epps v. State

1940 OK CR 80, 104 P.2d 262, 69 Okla. Crim. 460, 1940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 55
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 26, 1940
DocketNo. A-9671.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 1940 OK CR 80 (Epps 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
Epps v. State, 1940 OK CR 80, 104 P.2d 262, 69 Okla. Crim. 460, 1940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 55 (Okla. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The information in this case charged the defendant M. T. Epps with the crime of “communicating venereal disease”, “to wit: syphilis”, to Ruth Epps on or about August 6, 1938. The defendant, on his trial before a jury, was convicted. Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled on December 3, 1938. Thereupon the court sentenced the defendant to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary at McAlester in accordance with the verdict of the jury.

On June 2, 1939, an appeal from the judgment was taken by filing in this court a petition in error with case- *461 made and proper proof of notices. No briefs have been filed and no appearance for oral argument made.

Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no brief in support of the petition in error is submitted, and no appearance for oral argument made, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. This court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors. If no fundamental error appears, the judgment will be affirmed.

We have examined the record and find that the information is sufficient to charge the offense of communicating a venereal disease. The evidence, though conflicting, is amply sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence. On the record before us we have discovered no error which would warrant a reversal of the judgment, and it appears that the defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly in all things affirmed.

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

Related

O'QUINN v. State
1963 OK CR 61 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)
Glenn v. State
1962 OK CR 118 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1962)
Riggs v. State
1962 OK CR 92 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1962)
Brown v. State
1962 OK CR 31 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1962)
Hall v. State
1962 OK CR 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1962)
Lennox v. State
1961 OK CR 90 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1961)
Morse v. State
1958 OK CR 67 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1958)
Freels v. State
1958 OK CR 7 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1958)
Edd v. State
1957 OK CR 89 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1957)
Yoes v. State
1949 OK CR 115 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1949)
Hulsey v. State
1946 OK CR 58 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1946)
Rieckert v. State
1943 OK CR 133 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1943)
Dodge v. State
1943 OK CR 130 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1943)
Ex Parte Brown
1943 OK CR 74 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1943)
Hiett v. State
1942 OK CR 132 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1940 OK CR 80, 104 P.2d 262, 69 Okla. Crim. 460, 1940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epps-v-state-oklacrimapp-1940.