Morlan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Morlan v. State

1923 OK CR 302, 219 P. 172, 25 Okla. Crim. 144, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 26

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 27, 1923

DocketNo. A-4407.

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK CR 302 (Morlan 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

Morlan v. State, 1923 OK CR 302, 219 P. 172, 25 Okla. Crim. 144, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 26 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the county court of Dewey county, wherein Clarence Morían was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 60 days and to pay a fine of $100 and costs, taxed in the sum of $105. It was charged in the information, in substance, that the crime of manufacturing intoxicating liquor was committed by the ■defendant by willfully and unlawfully manufacturing, by process of distillation, intoxicating liquor containing more *145 than one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume measure, to wit, home' distilled liquor and capable of being used as' a beverage. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but were unable to agree upon the punishment.

The Attorney General has filed the following confession of error:

“The record in this appeal discloses that there was not a scintilla of evidence offered upon the part of the state to show that any quantity whatever of intoxicating liquor had been manufactured by the plaintiff in error, or that the mixture found upon the premises of plaintiff in error contained as much as one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol, measured by volume. It is to be noticed that the information charges the plaintiff in error with having manufactured intoxicating liquor by a process of distillation, and the chief witness for the state, in his testimony, discloses the fact that no part of the mixture had ever been distilled; in any manner or form. The verdict of the jury is clearly without any evidence to support the same and we respectfully suggest that this cause should be reversed.”

An examination of the record discloses that the- confession of error is well-founded and should be sustained. Because the evidence is entirely insufficient to support' the verdict and judgment of conviction, the judgment- of the lower court is reversed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the county court of Dewey county, wherein Clarence Morían was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 60 days and to pay a fine of $100 and costs, taxed in the sum of $105. It was charged in the information, in substance, that the crime of manufacturing intoxicating liquor was committed by the ■defendant by willfully and unlawfully manufacturing, by process of distillation, intoxicating liquor containing more *145 than one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume measure, to wit, home' distilled liquor and capable of being used as' a beverage. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but were unable to agree upon the punishment.

The Attorney General has filed the following confession of error:

“The record in this appeal discloses that there was not a scintilla of evidence offered upon the part of the state to show that any quantity whatever of intoxicating liquor had been manufactured by the plaintiff in error, or that the mixture found upon the premises of plaintiff in error contained as much as one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol, measured by volume. It is to be noticed that the information charges the plaintiff in error with having manufactured intoxicating liquor by a process of distillation, and the chief witness for the state, in his testimony, discloses the fact that no part of the mixture had ever been distilled; in any manner or form. The verdict of the jury is clearly without any evidence to support the same and we respectfully suggest that this cause should be reversed.”

An examination of the record discloses that the- confession of error is well-founded and should be sustained. Because the evidence is entirely insufficient to support' the verdict and judgment of conviction, the judgment- of the lower court is reversed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 302, 219 P. 172, 25 Okla. Crim. 144, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morlan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1923.