In Re Jacobs

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In Re Jacobs

1910 OK CR 202, 111 P. 815, 4 Okla. Crim. 346, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 69

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 23, 1910

DocketNo. 559.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1910 OK CR 202 (In Re Jacobs) 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

In Re Jacobs, 1910 OK CR 202, 111 P. 815, 4 Okla. Crim. 346, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 69 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

FURMAN, Presiding Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The defendant being indicted for murder applied, on.the 18th day of January, 1910, 'to this court to secure bail pending his trial on this indictment. On the 11th day of March, 1910, this court granted the defendant bail in the sum of $20,000, which was *353 never given. The defendant now makes application for the reduction in the amount of hail upon the ground that he cannot give bond in the sum of $30,000, and that therefore it is excessive. The mere fact that a defendant cannot make a bond in a certain sum does not necessarily make such amount excessive. Begard must be had to the nature of the crime alleged to have been committed and character of the evidence by which it is supported. As this ease is yet to be tried we do not deem it proper to discuss the evidence further than-to remark that in the light of the evidence before us we do not feel that we would be justified in granting a reduction in the amount of the bail upon the ground that it is excessive.

The defendant next contends that he is entitled to a reduction of his bond on account of the state of his health, alleging that further confinement would endanger his life.

We have granted bail upon this ground in several cases, but in each case the facts upon which we acted were conceded by the prosecution. But in this case the facts upon* which the defendant relies are contested by the state.

From a consideration of the entire testimony introduced, we are of the opinion that the defendant is not entitled to a reduction of bail upon the ground that further confinement will endanger his life.

The application for a reduction of bail is therefore refused.

DOYLE and BICHABDSON, Judges, concur.

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

FURMAN, Presiding Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The defendant being indicted for murder applied, on.the 18th day of January, 1910, 'to this court to secure bail pending his trial on this indictment. On the 11th day of March, 1910, this court granted the defendant bail in the sum of $20,000, which was *353 never given. The defendant now makes application for the reduction in the amount of hail upon the ground that he cannot give bond in the sum of $30,000, and that therefore it is excessive. The mere fact that a defendant cannot make a bond in a certain sum does not necessarily make such amount excessive. Begard must be had to the nature of the crime alleged to have been committed and character of the evidence by which it is supported. As this ease is yet to be tried we do not deem it proper to discuss the evidence further than-to remark that in the light of the evidence before us we do not feel that we would be justified in granting a reduction in the amount of the bail upon the ground that it is excessive.

The defendant next contends that he is entitled to a reduction of his bond on account of the state of his health, alleging that further confinement would endanger his life.

We have granted bail upon this ground in several cases, but in each case the facts upon which we acted were conceded by the prosecution. But in this case the facts upon* which the defendant relies are contested by the state.

From a consideration of the entire testimony introduced, we are of the opinion that the defendant is not entitled to a reduction of bail upon the ground that further confinement will endanger his life.

The application for a reduction of bail is therefore refused.

DOYLE and BICHABDSON, Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 202, 111 P. 815, 4 Okla. Crim. 346, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jacobs-oklacrimapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack