Marcum v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Marcum v. Commonwealth

320 S.W.2d 306

DecidedJanuary 23, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 320 S.W.2d 306 (Marcum v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marcum v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.2d 306 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court, Hon. R. C. Tartar, Judge, convicting Wayne Marcum of the second offense of unlawfully having intoxicating liquor in his possession for the purpose of sale in local option territory, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $200 and confinement in the county jail for sixty days.

Appellant insists: 1. The evidence against him was not' sufficient to take the case to the jury and the court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict; 2. the court did not instruct on the whole law of the case.

We have read the evidence and conclude it was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction. Furthermore, a consideration of the instructions and the authorities relied upon by appellant convinces us that the court did give the whole law of the case and there are no errors in the instructions.

The motion for appeal is denied and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court, Hon. R. C. Tartar, Judge, convicting Wayne Marcum of the second offense of unlawfully having intoxicating liquor in his possession for the purpose of sale in local option territory, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $200 and confinement in the county jail for sixty days.

Appellant insists: 1. The evidence against him was not' sufficient to take the case to the jury and the court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict; 2. the court did not instruct on the whole law of the case.

We have read the evidence and conclude it was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction. Furthermore, a consideration of the instructions and the authorities relied upon by appellant convinces us that the court did give the whole law of the case and there are no errors in the instructions.

The motion for appeal is denied and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 S.W.2d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcum-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1959.