Haney v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Haney v. State

1932 OK CR 94, 11 P.2d 536, 53 Okla. Crim. 314, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 14, 1932

DocketNo. A-8330.

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK CR 94 (Haney 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

Haney v. State, 1932 OK CR 94, 11 P.2d 536, 53 Okla. Crim. 314, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85 (Okla. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Kay county of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and his punishment fixed at a fine of f 50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a term of 30 days.

At the time charged, officers with a search warrant searched the filling station and premises of defendant. Near the station they found about seven half pints and two pints of whisky. The evidence is not clear whether this was on the lots occupied by the filling station or on the adjoining lot. Defendant denied any knowledge of the whisky, and offered evidence of previous good character. The evidence of possession was circumstantial.

The only assignment argued in which there is any merit is that the court erred in refusing, a requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. This court has re-reatedly held that, where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, it is error for the court to refuse to give a requested instruction on the law applicable thereto.

The case is reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Kay county of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and his punishment fixed at a fine of f 50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a term of 30 days.

At the time charged, officers with a search warrant searched the filling station and premises of defendant. Near the station they found about seven half pints and two pints of whisky. The evidence is not clear whether this was on the lots occupied by the filling station or on the adjoining lot. Defendant denied any knowledge of the whisky, and offered evidence of previous good character. The evidence of possession was circumstantial.

The only assignment argued in which there is any merit is that the court erred in refusing, a requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. This court has re-reatedly held that, where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, it is error for the court to refuse to give a requested instruction on the law applicable thereto.

The case is reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK CR 94, 11 P.2d 536, 53 Okla. Crim. 314, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haney-v-state-oklacrimapp-1932.