Lochran v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Lochran v. State

1925 OK CR 237, 235 P. 556, 30 Okla. Crim. 204, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 225

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 30, 1925

DocketNo. A-4646.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 237 (Lochran 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

Lochran v. State, 1925 OK CR 237, 235 P. 556, 30 Okla. Crim. 204, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 225 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, the jury leaving his punishment to be fixed by the court. Motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled, and the court sentenced the defendant to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50. He has appealed from the judgment, but no brief has been filed, and no appearance made on his behalf in this court.

Upon a careful examination of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, there is no prejudicial error in the rulings upon the admission *205 of testimony, and the instructions fully stated the law applicable to the case.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, the jury leaving his punishment to be fixed by the court. Motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled, and the court sentenced the defendant to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50. He has appealed from the judgment, but no brief has been filed, and no appearance made on his behalf in this court.

Upon a careful examination of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, there is no prejudicial error in the rulings upon the admission *205 of testimony, and the instructions fully stated the law applicable to the case.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 237, 235 P. 556, 30 Okla. Crim. 204, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lochran-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.