Mowels v. State

1931 OK CR 460, 11 P.2d 207, 52 Okla. Crim. 195, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 521

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Decided: October 16, 1931
• Docket: No. A-8168.
• Status: Published

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Blaine county of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $800 and imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days.

The evidence of the state was that the officers had been told by Adam Weber that a still was in operation in his barn, on his farm in Blaine county; that the officers went to the place and saw the still in operation; that they found 138 gallons of whisky in half-gallon fruit jars in 23 cases; that defendant had part- of a case of whisky in front of him with some empty jars to be filled.

The defendant did not take the witness stand, and offered no evidence.

Defendant contends, first, that the court erred in overruling bis motion for a continuance. His counsel dictated into the record an unverified motion for continuance, alleging, in substance, that defendant bad been tried tbe day before and some of tbe panel bad sat on that jury and others had beard tbe evidence. Tbe court very properly overruled this motion.

It appears from the record that in tbe examination of the jurors on their voir dire all of those jurors who bad sat in tbe trial of tbe previous case or beard all of tbe evidence in tbe prior case were excused by tbe court on defendant’s challenge for cause, and that tbe jury as finally impaneled contained no juror who had beard tbe evidence offered in the former trial.

Defendant next contends that tbe court erred in overruling bis demurrer to tbe evidence of tbe state.

Defendant filed no motion to suppress tbe evidence and made no objection to tbe introduction of tbe same, except that defendant’s counsel did object that tbe exhibit offered in evidence bad not been properly identified.

Tbe evidence of tbe state being sufficient to support tbe verdict of tbe jury, and tbe errors of law complained of by the defendant being without substantial merit, tbe cause is affirmed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.