Moreland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Moreland v. State

1909 OK CR 53, 101 P. 138, 2 Okla. Crim. 237, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 134

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 10, 1909

DocketNo. 370.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1909 OK CR 53 (Moreland 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

Moreland v. State, 1909 OK CR 53, 101 P. 138, 2 Okla. Crim. 237, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 134 (Okla. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, Judge,

(after stating the facts as above). The petition sets forth numerous assignments of error which are argued in the brief. However, on the undisputed facts, it is unnecessary to notice but the one that “the court erred in refusing to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty against said defendant.” The evidence conclusively shows that the whisky was ordered by defendant from Louisville, Ky., and from there shipped to him at Snyder, Oída. The question presented is identical with that in Schwedes v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 245, 99 Pac. 804, Houston Hudson v. State, ante, p. 176, 101 Pac. 275, and Josh McCord v. State, ante. p. 209, 101 Pac. 135. In the opinion rendered in the Hudson Case this court held that the jurisdiction of the state does not *240 attach to an interstate shipment of intoxicating liquors until said shipment is received at its destination, and that the prohibition law of Oklahoma does not' by express language or by implication abrogate or abridge the right to order and receive interstate shipments of intoxicating liquors, and that the language of said law precludes any other construction.

For the reasons therein stated, this cause must be reversed, and it is so ordered, and remanded with directions to the comity court of Kiowa county to dismiss the case.

FUR-MAN, Presiding Judge, and BAKER, Judge, concur.

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

DOYLE, Judge,

(after stating the facts as above). The petition sets forth numerous assignments of error which are argued in the brief. However, on the undisputed facts, it is unnecessary to notice but the one that “the court erred in refusing to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty against said defendant.” The evidence conclusively shows that the whisky was ordered by defendant from Louisville, Ky., and from there shipped to him at Snyder, Oída. The question presented is identical with that in Schwedes v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 245, 99 Pac. 804, Houston Hudson v. State, ante, p. 176, 101 Pac. 275, and Josh McCord v. State, ante. p. 209, 101 Pac. 135. In the opinion rendered in the Hudson Case this court held that the jurisdiction of the state does not *240 attach to an interstate shipment of intoxicating liquors until said shipment is received at its destination, and that the prohibition law of Oklahoma does not' by express language or by implication abrogate or abridge the right to order and receive interstate shipments of intoxicating liquors, and that the language of said law precludes any other construction.

For the reasons therein stated, this cause must be reversed, and it is so ordered, and remanded with directions to the comity court of Kiowa county to dismiss the case.

FUR-MAN, Presiding Judge, and BAKER, Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1909 OK CR 53, 101 P. 138, 2 Okla. Crim. 237, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreland-v-state-oklacrimapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack