Ex Parte Weathers

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Weathers

1925 OK CR 150, 234 P. 219, 29 Okla. Crim. 405, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 139

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 18, 1925

DocketNo. A-5282.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 150 (Ex Parte Weathers) 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 Weathers, 1925 OK CR 150, 234 P. 219, 29 Okla. Crim. 405, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 139 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

DOY)LE,. J.

The petition filed on behalf of William Weathers, September 2, 1924, shows that he was committed by a justice of the peace of Pottawatomie county, after a preliminary examination and without bail, to answer to the district court of that county upon a charge of murder, alleged to have been committed on August 12, 1924, by shooting David Hudson. An application for bail was made to the district court of said county and the same was denied.

On the application to this court a rule to show cause why the writ should not be awarded as prayed for issued, returnable September 6, 1924. The hearing on said application was had on the 11th day of September, 1924, at which time the cause was submitted on the transcript of the testimony taken on the hearing had in the district court of said county.

After a careful examination and consideration of the evidence upon which the application for bail was submitted, it was the opinion of the court that petitioner is not entitled to bail as a strict legal right. The determination and conclusion of the court in this case is based upon a settled rule that upon an application for bail by writ of habeas corpus, after commitment, for a capital offense by an examining magistrate, the burden is upon *407 petitioner to show facts sufficient to entitle him to bail, when those facts do not appear from the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution. Ex parte Johnson, 1 Okla. Cr. 414, 98 P. 461; Ex parte Dykes, 6 Okla. Cr. 162, 117 P. 724; Ex parte Mullins, 18 Okla. Cr. 478, 196 P. 145; Ex parte Holden, — Okla. Cr. —, 171 P. 925.

It is unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the facts in this case, and we shall adhere to the rule that in denying an application for bail neither the facts nor the law in such case will ordinarily be discussed by the court, lest it prejudice the rights of the defendant on his final trial.

It was accordingly adjudged and ordered that the writ be denied and that bail be refused.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

DOY)LE,. J.

The petition filed on behalf of William Weathers, September 2, 1924, shows that he was committed by a justice of the peace of Pottawatomie county, after a preliminary examination and without bail, to answer to the district court of that county upon a charge of murder, alleged to have been committed on August 12, 1924, by shooting David Hudson. An application for bail was made to the district court of said county and the same was denied.

On the application to this court a rule to show cause why the writ should not be awarded as prayed for issued, returnable September 6, 1924. The hearing on said application was had on the 11th day of September, 1924, at which time the cause was submitted on the transcript of the testimony taken on the hearing had in the district court of said county.

After a careful examination and consideration of the evidence upon which the application for bail was submitted, it was the opinion of the court that petitioner is not entitled to bail as a strict legal right. The determination and conclusion of the court in this case is based upon a settled rule that upon an application for bail by writ of habeas corpus, after commitment, for a capital offense by an examining magistrate, the burden is upon *407 petitioner to show facts sufficient to entitle him to bail, when those facts do not appear from the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution. Ex parte Johnson, 1 Okla. Cr. 414, 98 P. 461; Ex parte Dykes, 6 Okla. Cr. 162, 117 P. 724; Ex parte Mullins, 18 Okla. Cr. 478, 196 P. 145; Ex parte Holden, — Okla. Cr. —, 171 P. 925.

It is unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the facts in this case, and we shall adhere to the rule that in denying an application for bail neither the facts nor the law in such case will ordinarily be discussed by the court, lest it prejudice the rights of the defendant on his final trial.

It was accordingly adjudged and ordered that the writ be denied and that bail be refused.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 150, 234 P. 219, 29 Okla. Crim. 405, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-weathers-oklacrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack