Greenwood v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Greenwood v. State

1913 OK CR 113, 131 P. 940, 9 Okla. Crim. 342, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 127

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 7, 1913

DocketNo. A-1547.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1913 OK CR 113 (Greenwood 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

Greenwood v. State, 1913 OK CR 113, 131 P. 940, 9 Okla. Crim. 342, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 127 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county, on October 31, 1911, of the offense *343 of tmlawfully baying in his possession intoxicating liquors with intent to violate the prohibitory law. To reverse the judgment there was filed in this court December 21, 1911, a petition in error with ease-made.

Yarious errors are assigned, none of which we deem it necessary to discuss, for the reason that it appears from the testimony of the defendant as a witness on his own behalf that he is guilty of the offense charged. The defendant admitted the payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States, which designated his place of business as the place where the intoxicating liquors were found, and he admitted "that he had run that joint awhile.” The term of the government license did not expire until the end of the following June. Even if the case was close, the several assignments of error are of such a trivial character as to be undeserving of any consideration.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and FURMAN, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county, on October 31, 1911, of the offense *343 of tmlawfully baying in his possession intoxicating liquors with intent to violate the prohibitory law. To reverse the judgment there was filed in this court December 21, 1911, a petition in error with ease-made.

Yarious errors are assigned, none of which we deem it necessary to discuss, for the reason that it appears from the testimony of the defendant as a witness on his own behalf that he is guilty of the offense charged. The defendant admitted the payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States, which designated his place of business as the place where the intoxicating liquors were found, and he admitted "that he had run that joint awhile.” The term of the government license did not expire until the end of the following June. Even if the case was close, the several assignments of error are of such a trivial character as to be undeserving of any consideration.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and FURMAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 113, 131 P. 940, 9 Okla. Crim. 342, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwood-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack