Montgomery v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Montgomery v. State

1924 OK CR 294, 230 P. 1118, 28 Okla. Crim. 287, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 314

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 25, 1924

DocketNo. A-4641.

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK CR 294 (Montgomery 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

Montgomery v. State, 1924 OK CR 294, 230 P. 1118, 28 Okla. Crim. 287, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 314 (Okla. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error, L. C. Montgomery, was convicted on a charge that he did have in his possession 2% gallons of whisky with intent to sell and convey the same, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. No brief has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and the cause was submitted on the motion of the Attorney General to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute. We have examined the record, and find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, and, there being no apparent error warranting a reversal, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error, L. C. Montgomery, was convicted on a charge that he did have in his possession 2% gallons of whisky with intent to sell and convey the same, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. No brief has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and the cause was submitted on the motion of the Attorney General to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute. We have examined the record, and find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, and, there being no apparent error warranting a reversal, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK CR 294, 230 P. 1118, 28 Okla. Crim. 287, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-state-oklacrimapp-1924.