Lawrence v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Lawrence v. State

1931 OK CR 295, 300 P. 435, 51 Okla. Crim. 163, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 280

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 12, 1931

DocketNo. A-7947.

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK CR 295 (Lawrence 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

Lawrence v. State, 1931 OK CR 295, 300 P. 435, 51 Okla. Crim. 163, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 280 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of a still and worm, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days. Prom the judgment, the defendant has appealed.

Considerable record is made in this case on the question of the validity of a search warrant. From an exami-' nation of the testimony contained in the record, the testimony of the state shows that the officers had searched certain places, and when they came to defendant’s house and talked with him with reference to the information they had that a still was somewhere on the place, the defendant told them where it was and went with them to where the still was located, which was something like a half mile or more from the defendant’s house. Some of the testimony of the state tends to show that the defendant told the officers that he and a man by the' name of iSutton were running the still on a fifty-fifty basis. This *164 was denied by tbe defendant. The defendant denied be bad anything to do with the still, and claims he discovered the location of the still while he was out squirrel hunting.

Several errors are assigned by the defendant and urged for a reversal of this case. The seventh assignment is that the verdict of the jury and judgment and sentence of the court is not sustained by the evidence. The testimony of the state is in conflict with the defendant’s testimony. That question was settled by the jury adverse to the defendant. Where there is any competent evidence upon which the jury can reasonably find a verdict of guilty, this court will not disturb the same. Tennison v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 257, 240 Pac. 323; Shields v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 344, 240 Pac. 661; and Prank Harvey v. State, 51 Okla. Cr. 164, 300 Pac. 434.

The other errors assigned do not possess sufficient merit to warrant a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of a still and worm, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days. Prom the judgment, the defendant has appealed.

Considerable record is made in this case on the question of the validity of a search warrant. From an exami-' nation of the testimony contained in the record, the testimony of the state shows that the officers had searched certain places, and when they came to defendant’s house and talked with him with reference to the information they had that a still was somewhere on the place, the defendant told them where it was and went with them to where the still was located, which was something like a half mile or more from the defendant’s house. Some of the testimony of the state tends to show that the defendant told the officers that he and a man by the' name of iSutton were running the still on a fifty-fifty basis. This *164 was denied by tbe defendant. The defendant denied be bad anything to do with the still, and claims he discovered the location of the still while he was out squirrel hunting.

Several errors are assigned by the defendant and urged for a reversal of this case. The seventh assignment is that the verdict of the jury and judgment and sentence of the court is not sustained by the evidence. The testimony of the state is in conflict with the defendant’s testimony. That question was settled by the jury adverse to the defendant. Where there is any competent evidence upon which the jury can reasonably find a verdict of guilty, this court will not disturb the same. Tennison v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 257, 240 Pac. 323; Shields v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 344, 240 Pac. 661; and Prank Harvey v. State, 51 Okla. Cr. 164, 300 Pac. 434.

The other errors assigned do not possess sufficient merit to warrant a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 295, 300 P. 435, 51 Okla. Crim. 163, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack