Griffin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Griffin v. State

1932 OK CR 164, 15 P.2d 1092, 54 Okla. Crim. 160, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 185

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 2, 1932

DocketNo. A-8390.

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK CR 164 (Griffin 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

Griffin v. State, 1932 OK CR 164, 15 P.2d 1092, 54 Okla. Crim. 160, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 185 (Okla. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of a second violation of the prohibition laws, and sentenced to pay a fine of $250, and to' be imprisoned in the county jail for ninety days, and appeals.

The testimony on behalf of the state in substance is that the officers went to the town of Davenport, and saw a car in front of the home of Z. T. Adams, a negro ; they drove up close to this car; two parties got out of the car with two one-half gallon jars of whisky. About the time they discovered these parties had whisky, the defendant came up to the car and wanted to know what they were doing there, and asked if the officers had a search warrant. The car the parties got out of was the defendant’s car, and the officers claim the defendant stated that the whisky was his and the other parties had nothing to do with it.

*161 The defendant testified in his own behalf and denied the whisky was his or that he had possession of it. Under proper instructions of the court, the jury found the defendant guilty.

Several errors have been assigned by the defendant, hut we do not think they possess sufficient merit to warrant a reversal. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. No- fundamental or prejudicial errors appear in the record.

The case is affirmed.

EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of a second violation of the prohibition laws, and sentenced to pay a fine of $250, and to' be imprisoned in the county jail for ninety days, and appeals.

The testimony on behalf of the state in substance is that the officers went to the town of Davenport, and saw a car in front of the home of Z. T. Adams, a negro ; they drove up close to this car; two parties got out of the car with two one-half gallon jars of whisky. About the time they discovered these parties had whisky, the defendant came up to the car and wanted to know what they were doing there, and asked if the officers had a search warrant. The car the parties got out of was the defendant’s car, and the officers claim the defendant stated that the whisky was his and the other parties had nothing to do with it.

*161 The defendant testified in his own behalf and denied the whisky was his or that he had possession of it. Under proper instructions of the court, the jury found the defendant guilty.

Several errors have been assigned by the defendant, hut we do not think they possess sufficient merit to warrant a reversal. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. No- fundamental or prejudicial errors appear in the record.

The case is affirmed.

EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK CR 164, 15 P.2d 1092, 54 Okla. Crim. 160, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1932.