Litton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Litton v. State

1953 OK CR 164, 264 P.2d 386, 97 Okla. Crim. 367, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 328

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 25, 1953

DocketNo. A-11849

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1953 OK CR 164 (Litton 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1953 OK CR 164, 264 P.2d 386, 97 Okla. Crim. 367, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litton-v-state-oklacrimapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack