Lee v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Lee v. State

1915 OK CR 247, 151 P. 1198, 12 Okla. Crim. 603, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 2, 1915

DocketNo. A-2373.

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK CR 247 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 1915 OK CR 247, 151 P. 1198, 12 Okla. Crim. 603, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information- which charged that he did unlawfully sell one quart of whiskey to one M. L. Conner. Judgment was rendered on the 9th day of October, 1914, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and to be confined in the county jail for thirty days. He appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on November 23, 1914, a petition in error with case-made.

*604 The only question necessary to be considered is the sufficienee of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The state ealled one witness, M. L. Conner, who testified that he was a farmer, had lived about a mile and a half south of Dustin for five years, that during that time he had known the defendant, and about the 31st day of January, 1913, he bought a quart of whiskey from him at his home in the town, of Dustin, paying therefor two dollars. he was

As a witness in his own behalf the defendant testified that he was the city marshal'of the town of Dustin at the time and denied that he ever sold any whiskey to the defendant.

In our opinion the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. It was for the jury to determine which witness was worthy of belief. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant did not have a fair trial. Finding no error in the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information- which charged that he did unlawfully sell one quart of whiskey to one M. L. Conner. Judgment was rendered on the 9th day of October, 1914, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and to be confined in the county jail for thirty days. He appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on November 23, 1914, a petition in error with case-made.

*604 The only question necessary to be considered is the sufficienee of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The state ealled one witness, M. L. Conner, who testified that he was a farmer, had lived about a mile and a half south of Dustin for five years, that during that time he had known the defendant, and about the 31st day of January, 1913, he bought a quart of whiskey from him at his home in the town, of Dustin, paying therefor two dollars. he was

As a witness in his own behalf the defendant testified that he was the city marshal'of the town of Dustin at the time and denied that he ever sold any whiskey to the defendant.

In our opinion the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. It was for the jury to determine which witness was worthy of belief. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant did not have a fair trial. Finding no error in the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK CR 247, 151 P. 1198, 12 Okla. Crim. 603, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-oklacrimapp-1915.