Madding v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Madding v. State

1921 OK CR 71, 196 P. 1102, 18 Okla. Crim. 726, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 228

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 4, 1921

DocketA-3652

StatusPublished

This text of 1921 OK CR 71 (Madding 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

Madding v. State, 1921 OK CR 71, 196 P. 1102, 18 Okla. Crim. 726, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 228 (Okla. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Ike Madding, was convicted on an information, charging him with an assault with intent to rape, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for one year in the penitentiary. From the judgment rendered on the verdict he appealed by filing .in this court on November 11, 1919, a petition in error with case-made.

No brief has been filed, and when the case was called for final submission it was submitted on the record. The evidence for the state is uncontroverted, and it is apparent from the record that justice has been done and the judgment ought not to be reversed, except for some plain error in the proceeding which was, or might be prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. After a very careful examination of the record we have failed to discover any such error. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Ike Madding, was convicted on an information, charging him with an assault with intent to rape, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for one year in the penitentiary. From the judgment rendered on the verdict he appealed by filing .in this court on November 11, 1919, a petition in error with case-made.

No brief has been filed, and when the case was called for final submission it was submitted on the record. The evidence for the state is uncontroverted, and it is apparent from the record that justice has been done and the judgment ought not to be reversed, except for some plain error in the proceeding which was, or might be prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. After a very careful examination of the record we have failed to discover any such error. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1921 OK CR 71, 196 P. 1102, 18 Okla. Crim. 726, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madding-v-state-oklacrimapp-1921.