Hedden v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hedden v. State

1909 OK CR 91, 103 P. 737, 2 Okla. Crim. 588, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 175

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 30, 1909

DocketNo. A-13.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1909 OK CR 91 (Hedden 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

Hedden v. State, 1909 OK CR 91, 103 P. 737, 2 Okla. Crim. 588, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 175 (Okla. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PE1R 'CURIAM.

This is a companion case to the case of Weber v. State, ante, p. 329, 101 Pac. 355. Plaintiff in error, Will Hedden, was convicted in the county court of Creek county on an information charging that in Creek count}1-, on March 21, *589 1908, Will Hedaen, John Tinkler, and John Doe (Frank Weber) did sell to one S. W. Barnhill one-half pint of whisky. Defendant was granted a severance. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilt}', motion for new trial was filed, overruled, and exception allowed, and the court pronounced judgment. The case was appealed. At the May, 1909, term said cause was submitted.

Numerous assignments of error are set forth in the petition. However, as the same or a similar instruction was given by the eourt in this ease as that given in the case of State v. Weber, supra, wherein this court, after fully considering the question, held that the giving of such an instruction constitutes, reversible error, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments.

For the reasons set forth in said opinion, this cause is reversed, and remanded to the county eourt of Creek county.

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

PE1R 'CURIAM.

This is a companion case to the case of Weber v. State, ante, p. 329, 101 Pac. 355. Plaintiff in error, Will Hedden, was convicted in the county court of Creek county on an information charging that in Creek count}1-, on March 21, *589 1908, Will Hedaen, John Tinkler, and John Doe (Frank Weber) did sell to one S. W. Barnhill one-half pint of whisky. Defendant was granted a severance. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilt}', motion for new trial was filed, overruled, and exception allowed, and the court pronounced judgment. The case was appealed. At the May, 1909, term said cause was submitted.

Numerous assignments of error are set forth in the petition. However, as the same or a similar instruction was given by the eourt in this ease as that given in the case of State v. Weber, supra, wherein this court, after fully considering the question, held that the giving of such an instruction constitutes, reversible error, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments.

For the reasons set forth in said opinion, this cause is reversed, and remanded to the county eourt of Creek county.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1909 OK CR 91, 103 P. 737, 2 Okla. Crim. 588, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedden-v-state-oklacrimapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack