Hazelwood v. Territory of Oklahoma

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hazelwood v. Territory of Oklahoma

1906 OK 101, 87 P. 470, 17 Okla. 515, 1906 Okla. LEXIS 63

DecidedSeptember 7, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 1906 OK 101 (Hazelwood v. Territory of Oklahoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hazelwood v. Territory of Oklahoma, 1906 OK 101, 87 P. 470, 17 Okla. 515, 1906 Okla. LEXIS 63 (Okla. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of tbe conrt by

Burwell, J.:

Lee Hazelwood was indicted jointly with, one Jerry Winningham, for stealing three cows. Hazelwood was tried and convicted, and sentenced to a term of two years in the territorial penitentiary. He has appealed to this conrt praying a reversal of the judgment.

We have read the entire record, and are fully convinced that a new trial should be granted, on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. It is true, that there are some circumstances that are somewhat suspicious, but this is the most that can be said of them. The evidence was entirely circumstantial and the jury was not justified in finding that it was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. In fact, the great weight of the evidence was in favor of the defendant. He not only denied the commission of the crime himself, but offered strong evidence by other witnesses. No one ever saw the cattle in defendant’s possession, or saw him commit any act in relation to their taking.

Counsel for the defendant insist with vigor that there is no evidence to support the verdict. The brief, for the territory, in discussing this point simply says:

*517 “We contend that where there is some appreciable evidence connecting a person charged with crime, with the commission of the offense, that so far as the evidence is concerned, that is a matter for the jury nnder the proper instructions from the trial court.” Citing Smith v. The Territory 13 Okla. 575.

The representatives of the territorj^ do not pretend to point out the evidence which they assume justified the verdict. It canpot be found in the record.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed at the cost of the territory, and a new trial ordered.

Gillette, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of tbe conrt by

Burwell, J.:

Lee Hazelwood was indicted jointly with, one Jerry Winningham, for stealing three cows. Hazelwood was tried and convicted, and sentenced to a term of two years in the territorial penitentiary. He has appealed to this conrt praying a reversal of the judgment.

We have read the entire record, and are fully convinced that a new trial should be granted, on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. It is true, that there are some circumstances that are somewhat suspicious, but this is the most that can be said of them. The evidence was entirely circumstantial and the jury was not justified in finding that it was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. In fact, the great weight of the evidence was in favor of the defendant. He not only denied the commission of the crime himself, but offered strong evidence by other witnesses. No one ever saw the cattle in defendant’s possession, or saw him commit any act in relation to their taking.

Counsel for the defendant insist with vigor that there is no evidence to support the verdict. The brief, for the territory, in discussing this point simply says:

*517 “We contend that where there is some appreciable evidence connecting a person charged with crime, with the commission of the offense, that so far as the evidence is concerned, that is a matter for the jury nnder the proper instructions from the trial court.” Citing Smith v. The Territory 13 Okla. 575.

The representatives of the territorj^ do not pretend to point out the evidence which they assume justified the verdict. It canpot be found in the record.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed at the cost of the territory, and a new trial ordered.

Gillette, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1906 OK 101, 87 P. 470, 17 Okla. 515, 1906 Okla. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazelwood-v-territory-of-oklahoma-okla-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack