Marrs v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Marrs v. State

1913 OK CR 219, 132 P. 1196, 9 Okla. Crim. 732, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 226

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 14, 1913

DocketNo. A-1601.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 219 (Marrs 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

Marrs v. State, 1913 OK CR 219, 132 P. 1196, 9 Okla. Crim. 732, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 226 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*733 PISE. CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, John Marrs, was convicted at the November, 1911, term of the county court of Murray county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days. We have carefully Examined the record in this case and can find no error prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The facts were sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury by the trial court, and are such that this court cannot say any injustice was done. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

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

*733 PISE. CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, John Marrs, was convicted at the November, 1911, term of the county court of Murray county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of ninety days. We have carefully Examined the record in this case and can find no error prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The facts were sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury by the trial court, and are such that this court cannot say any injustice was done. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 219, 132 P. 1196, 9 Okla. Crim. 732, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrs-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.