Fossett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Fossett v. State

1913 OK CR 361, 135 P. 1192, 10 Okla. Crim. 659, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 324

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 15, 1913

DocketNo. A-1833.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 361 (Fossett 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

Fossett v. State, 1913 OK CR 361, 135 P. 1192, 10 Okla. Crim. 659, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 324 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Custer county upon an information which charged the unlawful possession of twenty-eight pints of whisky and seventeen bottles of beer. On the 19th day of July, 1912, in accordance with the verdict of the jury she was sentenced to. be confined in the county jail for six months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. After a careful examination of the various questions raised, we are satisfied that under well settled rules, sustained and upheld by the decisions of' this court,' no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant was committed on the trial, nor have we any reason to doubt that the verdict was reached only upon a fair and full consideration of the case by the jury. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Custer county upon an information which charged the unlawful possession of twenty-eight pints of whisky and seventeen bottles of beer. On the 19th day of July, 1912, in accordance with the verdict of the jury she was sentenced to. be confined in the county jail for six months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. After a careful examination of the various questions raised, we are satisfied that under well settled rules, sustained and upheld by the decisions of' this court,' no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant was committed on the trial, nor have we any reason to doubt that the verdict was reached only upon a fair and full consideration of the case by the jury. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 361, 135 P. 1192, 10 Okla. Crim. 659, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fossett-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.