McMillian v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McMillian v. State

1913 OK CR 323, 132 P. 1196, 10 Okla. Crim. 635, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 247

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 5, 1913

DocketNo. A-1683.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 323 (McMillian 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

McMillian v. State, 1913 OK CR 323, 132 P. 1196, 10 Okla. Crim. 635, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 247 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

EURMAN, J.

Appellant was convicted for violating the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment was assessed at ninety days’ confinement in the county jail and a fine of $250. The various questions of law presented in the brief of counsel for appellant have all been repeatedly decided adversely to the contentions therein made. Under these conditions the law relieves us of the necessity of writing an elabo *636 rate opinion. If it were not for the fact that onr docket is crowded with business we would be willing to take up and discuss the various questions presented, but we have no doubt as to the guilt of this appellant and our duty to the state will not allow us to take time from other cases discussing questions which we have already decided. The judgment of the trial court is therefore in all things affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

EURMAN, J.

Appellant was convicted for violating the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment was assessed at ninety days’ confinement in the county jail and a fine of $250. The various questions of law presented in the brief of counsel for appellant have all been repeatedly decided adversely to the contentions therein made. Under these conditions the law relieves us of the necessity of writing an elabo *636 rate opinion. If it were not for the fact that onr docket is crowded with business we would be willing to take up and discuss the various questions presented, but we have no doubt as to the guilt of this appellant and our duty to the state will not allow us to take time from other cases discussing questions which we have already decided. The judgment of the trial court is therefore in all things affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 323, 132 P. 1196, 10 Okla. Crim. 635, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillian-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.