Knight v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Knight v. State

1912 OK CR 56, 119 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 715, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 291

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1912

DocketNo. A-1150.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 56 (Knight 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

Knight v. State, 1912 OK CR 56, 119 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 715, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 291 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1911, term of the county court of Hughes county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The transcript before us is certified as complete. There is no case-made. It appears that the plaintiff in error was tried in the court below without counsel, and that the testimony taken upon the trial was not preserved by reporter. A motion for a new trial was filed which sets up facts tending to show that the rights of the accused were not properly preserved, and as an affirmative' defense to the charge. In view of the fact that the testimony was not taken by the court stenographer, and that the record does not show that the court preserved the rights of the plaintiff in error, we think a new trial should be awarded. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1911, term of the county court of Hughes county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The transcript before us is certified as complete. There is no case-made. It appears that the plaintiff in error was tried in the court below without counsel, and that the testimony taken upon the trial was not preserved by reporter. A motion for a new trial was filed which sets up facts tending to show that the rights of the accused were not properly preserved, and as an affirmative' defense to the charge. In view of the fact that the testimony was not taken by the court stenographer, and that the record does not show that the court preserved the rights of the plaintiff in error, we think a new trial should be awarded. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 56, 119 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 715, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.