Hester v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hester v. State

1918 OK CR 33, 171 P. 340, 14 Okla. Crim. 383, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 19, 1918

DocketNo. A-2837.

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK CR 33 (Hester 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

Hester v. State, 1918 OK CR 33, 171 P. 340, 14 Okla. Crim. 383, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, John Hester, was convicted in the county court of Pottawatomie county at the April, 1916, term on a charge of having the unlawful .possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail of Pottawatomie county for a period of 30 days.

The only propositions raised by the plaintiff in error and discussed in the brief involve questions which were exclusively for the determination of the jury. These questions were determined adversely to the wishes and contentions of the plaintiff in error, but in our judgment were properly determined.

There are no errors sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment. It is therefore affirmed. ■ ■

DOYLE,' P. J., and MATSON, J., concur.

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

ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, John Hester, was convicted in the county court of Pottawatomie county at the April, 1916, term on a charge of having the unlawful .possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail of Pottawatomie county for a period of 30 days.

The only propositions raised by the plaintiff in error and discussed in the brief involve questions which were exclusively for the determination of the jury. These questions were determined adversely to the wishes and contentions of the plaintiff in error, but in our judgment were properly determined.

There are no errors sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment. It is therefore affirmed. ■ ■

DOYLE,' P. J., and MATSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 33, 171 P. 340, 14 Okla. Crim. 383, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hester-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.