Litton v. State

1953 OK CR 164, 264 P.2d 386, 97 Okla. Crim. 367, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 328
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided November 25, 1953·No. No. A-11849·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

JONES, J.

This is a companion case to Hisel v. State, 97 Okla. Cr. 356, 264 P. 2d 375. A complete statement of the facts is set forth in the Hisel case and reference may be had to that opinion. Hisel and Litton were jointly charged. Litton’s guilt consisted solely in the fact that as county commissioner, he voted. for approval of the claims filed by the Metropolitan Paving Company. There was no claim and no evidence that Litton personally had anything to do with the ordering of the repairs for the Sooner Road or had any personal knowledge of the amount involved.

Since we have held in Hisel v. State, supra, that the evidence of the state was wholly insufficient to support the allegations of the information and we are reversing the case as to Hisel, it necessarily follows that the same order would be made for the defendant Litton.

The judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county as to the defendant Charles A. Litton is reversed.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

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

Litton v. State, 1953 OK CR 164, 264 P.2d 386, 97 Okla. Crim. 367, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 328 (Okla. Ct. App. 1953).

1953 OK CR 164 (Litton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Board of County Commissioners v. Litton
1957 OK 139 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1957)