Ernhart v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ernhart v. State

1929 OK CR 152, 276 P. 696, 42 Okla. Crim. 436, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 402

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 27, 1929

DocketNo. A-6392.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 152 (Ernhart 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

Ernhart v. State, 1929 OK CR 152, 276 P. 696, 42 Okla. Crim. 436, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 402 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*437 PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Okmulgee county on a ■ charge of manufacturing corn whisky, and was sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $100.

The only contention presented in the brief is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. The record discloses that at the time charged, certain officers discovered a still in operation in a canyon and on approaching it found defendant and one Roy Ray. Defendant at the time was pouring whisky from a container into a five-gallon jug. Some statements were made by the parties at the time and shortly after the arrest indicating their joint participation in the making of the whisky. Defendant asserts that there is no proof that the whisky was corn whisky as charged in the information. We do not consider the contention has any merit. The evidence amply sustains the judgment.

The case is affirmed.

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

*437 PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Okmulgee county on a ■ charge of manufacturing corn whisky, and was sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $100.

The only contention presented in the brief is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. The record discloses that at the time charged, certain officers discovered a still in operation in a canyon and on approaching it found defendant and one Roy Ray. Defendant at the time was pouring whisky from a container into a five-gallon jug. Some statements were made by the parties at the time and shortly after the arrest indicating their joint participation in the making of the whisky. Defendant asserts that there is no proof that the whisky was corn whisky as charged in the information. We do not consider the contention has any merit. The evidence amply sustains the judgment.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 152, 276 P. 696, 42 Okla. Crim. 436, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernhart-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.