Ex Parte Passini

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Passini

1922 OK CR 11, 203 P. 242, 20 Okla. Crim. 402, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 64

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 18, 1922

DocketNo. A-4148.

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK CR 11 (Ex Parte Passini) 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

Ex Parte Passini, 1922 OK CR 11, 203 P. 242, 20 Okla. Crim. 402, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 64 (Okla. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

In this proceeding petitioner Primo Pas-sini by his attorneys presented to this court a verified petition, wherein he alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Austin Park, sheriff of Latimer county, and that his illegal confinement and detention consists in this, to wit, that an order of commitment was issued by H. E. McLarty, justice of the peace in and for Wilburton, Latimer country, on the 2d day of December, 1921, upon a preliminary examination had upon a complaint wherein petitioner was charged with the crime of murder, alleged to have been committed in said county on or about the 20th day of November, 1921, by shooting and killing one Sesto Pranzini, and that under the evidence introduced on said examination the proof of his guilt is not evident nor the presumption thereof great. It is also averred that on application for bail before E. F. Lester, judge of the district court of Latimer county, hearing was had, and petitioner was denied bail.

The rule is well settled that on the hearing of an application for admission to bail by one held under a commitment for murder the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the proof of his guilt is not .evident nor the presumption *404 .thereof great. The theory of the state was that it was a lying in wait assassination. The defendant did not take the witness stand on the preliminary examination nor on the hearing of his application for bail before the district court.

Without entering into a discussion of the facts in evidence, we deem it sufficient to say that upon a careful consideration of all the evidence presented we are of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail as a matter of legal right. It is therefore considered and adjudged that the writ be denied, and bail refused.

MATSON and BESSEY, JJ., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

In this proceeding petitioner Primo Pas-sini by his attorneys presented to this court a verified petition, wherein he alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Austin Park, sheriff of Latimer county, and that his illegal confinement and detention consists in this, to wit, that an order of commitment was issued by H. E. McLarty, justice of the peace in and for Wilburton, Latimer country, on the 2d day of December, 1921, upon a preliminary examination had upon a complaint wherein petitioner was charged with the crime of murder, alleged to have been committed in said county on or about the 20th day of November, 1921, by shooting and killing one Sesto Pranzini, and that under the evidence introduced on said examination the proof of his guilt is not evident nor the presumption thereof great. It is also averred that on application for bail before E. F. Lester, judge of the district court of Latimer county, hearing was had, and petitioner was denied bail.

The rule is well settled that on the hearing of an application for admission to bail by one held under a commitment for murder the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the proof of his guilt is not .evident nor the presumption *404 .thereof great. The theory of the state was that it was a lying in wait assassination. The defendant did not take the witness stand on the preliminary examination nor on the hearing of his application for bail before the district court.

Without entering into a discussion of the facts in evidence, we deem it sufficient to say that upon a careful consideration of all the evidence presented we are of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail as a matter of legal right. It is therefore considered and adjudged that the writ be denied, and bail refused.

MATSON and BESSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK CR 11, 203 P. 242, 20 Okla. Crim. 402, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-passini-oklacrimapp-1922.