Holland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Holland v. State

1931 OK CR 321, 300 P. 745, 51 Okla. Crim. 285, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 283

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 11, 1931

DocketNo. A-7868.

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK CR 321 (Holland 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

Holland v. State, 1931 OK CR 321, 300 P. 745, 51 Okla. Crim. 285, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 283 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Washington county of larceny of an automobile and was sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary.

*286 The record discloses that, at the time charged, defendant took an automobile belonging to one Ballard which was parked in front of the Elks Club in Bartles-ville and started to drive it to Pawhuska. He drove it several miles in the country, ran it into a ditch, and abandoned it. He testified that he was drunk and thought that the car belonged to one Pratt and that he had Pratt’s permission to drive it. Pratt was not a witness. The evidence is sufficient to* sustain the verdict and judgment.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Washington county of larceny of an automobile and was sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary.

*286 The record discloses that, at the time charged, defendant took an automobile belonging to one Ballard which was parked in front of the Elks Club in Bartles-ville and started to drive it to Pawhuska. He drove it several miles in the country, ran it into a ditch, and abandoned it. He testified that he was drunk and thought that the car belonged to one Pratt and that he had Pratt’s permission to drive it. Pratt was not a witness. The evidence is sufficient to* sustain the verdict and judgment.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 321, 300 P. 745, 51 Okla. Crim. 285, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.