Greer v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Greer v. State

1913 OK CR 164, 132 P. 1122, 9 Okla. Crim. 669, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 199

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 30, 1913

DocketNo. A-1562.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 164 (Greer 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

Greer v. State, 1913 OK CR 164, 132 P. 1122, 9 Okla. Crim. 669, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 199 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*670 DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information charging him with the unlawful sale of a bottle of whisky 'to one M. V. Smith. On the 5th day of September, 1911, he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $50. To reverse the judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

Iiis principal contention is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The complaining witness, M. V. Smith testified that some time in the month of February he went into the Palace Pharmacy in the town of Allen, and bought a pint of whisky from the defendant, paying him $1 therefor. ,The defendant testified that he remembered that the complaining witness was in his store, but denied that he sold .him any whisky or other intoxicating liquors of any kind.

There was a direct conflict in the testimony of the complaining witness and. that of the defendant. The jurors had the witnesses before them, and they no doubt in determining the truth took" into consideration fill the attending circumstances of the case. The defendant was interested in the event of the trial, and the complaining witness was not, so far as the record discloses. This of itself, for aught we can know, may have fully warranted the jury in giving credence to -the evidence of the complaining witness. It is not impossible that the verdict is unjust and the result of prejudice, but we cannot so declare when there is sufficient evidence to support it, and no extraneous facts shown which cast any reflection upon the good faith or impartiality of the jury. The record shows that the defendant has received a fair trial within the meaning of the law. The judgment of the county court of Pontotoc county 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

*670 DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information charging him with the unlawful sale of a bottle of whisky 'to one M. V. Smith. On the 5th day of September, 1911, he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $50. To reverse the judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

Iiis principal contention is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The complaining witness, M. V. Smith testified that some time in the month of February he went into the Palace Pharmacy in the town of Allen, and bought a pint of whisky from the defendant, paying him $1 therefor. ,The defendant testified that he remembered that the complaining witness was in his store, but denied that he sold .him any whisky or other intoxicating liquors of any kind.

There was a direct conflict in the testimony of the complaining witness and. that of the defendant. The jurors had the witnesses before them, and they no doubt in determining the truth took" into consideration fill the attending circumstances of the case. The defendant was interested in the event of the trial, and the complaining witness was not, so far as the record discloses. This of itself, for aught we can know, may have fully warranted the jury in giving credence to -the evidence of the complaining witness. It is not impossible that the verdict is unjust and the result of prejudice, but we cannot so declare when there is sufficient evidence to support it, and no extraneous facts shown which cast any reflection upon the good faith or impartiality of the jury. The record shows that the defendant has received a fair trial within the meaning of the law. The judgment of the county court of Pontotoc county is therefore affirmed. •

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 164, 132 P. 1122, 9 Okla. Crim. 669, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greer-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.