McAlexander v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McAlexander v. State

1914 OK CR 81, 140 P. 1197, 10 Okla. Crim. 685, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 210

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 21, 1914

DocketNo. A-1950.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 81 (McAlexander 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

McAlexander v. State, 1914 OK CR 81, 140 P. 1197, 10 Okla. Crim. 685, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 210 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an information which charged that he “did unlawfully and willfully make a malt liquor to wit: Choctaw Beer in the amount of ten gallons, contrary" etc. The state’s evidence was substantially as follows: Mart Miller testified that he was under-sheriff and went to Mr. Mc-Alexander's residence with Ras.Chance and found no one there, so they opened the door and went in and found two kegs; one of them full of Choctaw Beer; that he turned the faucet on the one that was full and let the gas out of it; that he did not know what Choctaw Beer is made out of; that some of it is intoxicating; that he did not drink any of this beer. That he heard the sheriff say he destroyed it. Ras Chance testified that he was a deputy sheriff .and was with Mart Miller when they searched Mr. McAlexander’s house and found the keg; that Chostaw Beer “is made out of copperas, yeast and something." That Mr. McAlexander told him he made Choctaw Beer and root beer. The defendant moved to direct a verdict of not guilty, which was overruled. We think the motion should have been sustained. The evidence is insufficient to show that the keg contained intoxicating liquor, or that the defendant had manufactured intoxicating liquor as charged. The judgment of conviction is therefore reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an information which charged that he “did unlawfully and willfully make a malt liquor to wit: Choctaw Beer in the amount of ten gallons, contrary" etc. The state’s evidence was substantially as follows: Mart Miller testified that he was under-sheriff and went to Mr. Mc-Alexander's residence with Ras.Chance and found no one there, so they opened the door and went in and found two kegs; one of them full of Choctaw Beer; that he turned the faucet on the one that was full and let the gas out of it; that he did not know what Choctaw Beer is made out of; that some of it is intoxicating; that he did not drink any of this beer. That he heard the sheriff say he destroyed it. Ras Chance testified that he was a deputy sheriff .and was with Mart Miller when they searched Mr. McAlexander’s house and found the keg; that Chostaw Beer “is made out of copperas, yeast and something." That Mr. McAlexander told him he made Choctaw Beer and root beer. The defendant moved to direct a verdict of not guilty, which was overruled. We think the motion should have been sustained. The evidence is insufficient to show that the keg contained intoxicating liquor, or that the defendant had manufactured intoxicating liquor as charged. The judgment of conviction is therefore reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 81, 140 P. 1197, 10 Okla. Crim. 685, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcalexander-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.