McClanahan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McClanahan v. State

1928 OK CR 276, 269 P. 782, 41 Okla. Crim. 15, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 1, 1928

DocketNo. A-6127.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1928 OK CR 276 (McClanahan 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

McClanahan v. State, 1928 OK CR 276, 269 P. 782, 41 Okla. Crim. 15, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (Okla. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Sequoyah county on a charge of larceny of domestic animals, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for a term of five years.

All the assignments of error go to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. Briefly stated, the record discloses that E.XE. Gragg had *16 two head of cattle taken from the range, and learned that a firm of butchers, Leach & Cassidy, at Sallisaw, had possession of cattle answering the description. He went there and found his cattle and recovered them. Cassidy testified that he bought these cattle from defendant, and this is admitted. A witness Trimble testified that about this time he saw defendant and one Honeycutt driving cattle answering this description upon a byroad near where they ranged. At the time of his arrest, defendant told the sheriff in the presence of the witness McLaughlin, that he had bought the cattle from a Delaware Indian. Upon the trial, defendant testified he bought the cattle from Charley Wallace in the presence of Lon Honeycutt, Jack Holt, Fred Payne, and Wallace Payne. Wallace Payne was a brother-in-law of defendant. Charley Wallace, from whom defendant claims he bought the cattle, was not produced as a witness. The evidence for the state is in part circumstantial, and the entire testimony is conflicting. There is, however, sufficient evidence which, if belWed by the jury, amply sustains the verdict and judgment. It is well settled that, where there is evidence, although conflicting, from which the jury may reasonably and logically find a defendant guilty, its weight and sufficiency is for the jury, and this court will not disturb the judgment for insufficiency of the evidence.

The case is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Sequoyah county on a charge of larceny of domestic animals, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for a term of five years.

All the assignments of error go to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. Briefly stated, the record discloses that E.XE. Gragg had *16 two head of cattle taken from the range, and learned that a firm of butchers, Leach & Cassidy, at Sallisaw, had possession of cattle answering the description. He went there and found his cattle and recovered them. Cassidy testified that he bought these cattle from defendant, and this is admitted. A witness Trimble testified that about this time he saw defendant and one Honeycutt driving cattle answering this description upon a byroad near where they ranged. At the time of his arrest, defendant told the sheriff in the presence of the witness McLaughlin, that he had bought the cattle from a Delaware Indian. Upon the trial, defendant testified he bought the cattle from Charley Wallace in the presence of Lon Honeycutt, Jack Holt, Fred Payne, and Wallace Payne. Wallace Payne was a brother-in-law of defendant. Charley Wallace, from whom defendant claims he bought the cattle, was not produced as a witness. The evidence for the state is in part circumstantial, and the entire testimony is conflicting. There is, however, sufficient evidence which, if belWed by the jury, amply sustains the verdict and judgment. It is well settled that, where there is evidence, although conflicting, from which the jury may reasonably and logically find a defendant guilty, its weight and sufficiency is for the jury, and this court will not disturb the judgment for insufficiency of the evidence.

The case is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK CR 276, 269 P. 782, 41 Okla. Crim. 15, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclanahan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack