McCurdy v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McCurdy v. State

1934 OK CR 17, 29 P.2d 132, 55 Okla. Crim. 276, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 112

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 2, 1934

DocketNo. A-8624.

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK CR 17 (McCurdy 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

McCurdy v. State, 1934 OK CR 17, 29 P.2d 132, 55 Okla. Crim. 276, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 112 (Okla. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as. the defendant, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to. barter, sell, give away, and otherwise furnish to others, and sen *277 tenced to .pay a fine of $75, and to be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days and pay the cost of the prosecution.

From a reading of the record in this case we find in substance that the officers went to defendant’s place and searched the same and failed to find anything on the premises, or upon any of the lands owned or controlled by him, but did find sixty-two gallons of whisky on land near the defendant not in the possession or control of the defendant. A number of witnesses testified in behalf of the defendant as to the location where the whisky was found, and to his previous good character.

The first assignment of the défendant is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. In the motion for a new trial, it is urged that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. With this contention we agree. While the circumstances and surroundings indicate that defendant must have known something of the whisky found on the adjoining property, yet there is no testimony showing that he had exercised ownership, possession, or control over the land where the whisky was found, or that he had in any way whatever been connected with this whisky for which he is charged with having possession with intent to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish to others.

There being no competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment, the case is reversed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as. the defendant, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to. barter, sell, give away, and otherwise furnish to others, and sen *277 tenced to .pay a fine of $75, and to be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days and pay the cost of the prosecution.

From a reading of the record in this case we find in substance that the officers went to defendant’s place and searched the same and failed to find anything on the premises, or upon any of the lands owned or controlled by him, but did find sixty-two gallons of whisky on land near the defendant not in the possession or control of the defendant. A number of witnesses testified in behalf of the defendant as to the location where the whisky was found, and to his previous good character.

The first assignment of the défendant is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. In the motion for a new trial, it is urged that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. With this contention we agree. While the circumstances and surroundings indicate that defendant must have known something of the whisky found on the adjoining property, yet there is no testimony showing that he had exercised ownership, possession, or control over the land where the whisky was found, or that he had in any way whatever been connected with this whisky for which he is charged with having possession with intent to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish to others.

There being no competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment, the case is reversed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK CR 17, 29 P.2d 132, 55 Okla. Crim. 276, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccurdy-v-state-oklacrimapp-1934.