Murray v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Murray v. State

1912 OK CR 120, 121 P. 791, 7 Okla. Crim. 40, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 57

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 7, 1912

DocketNo. A-965.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 120 (Murray 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

Murray v. State, 1912 OK CR 120, 121 P. 791, 7 Okla. Crim. 40, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 57 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

FURMAN, P. J.

No brief has been filed in this case on the part of appellant, and no appearance has been made in his behalf. It is the duty of this court to decide questions properly presented,, and not to brief cases. Where counsel do not appear in court and present the questions upon which they rely, either by brief or oral argument, this court will not do more than examine the record for fundamental errors. See Henson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 6, 113 Pac. 224; Price v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 147, 113 Pac. 1061; Mingle v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 535, 115 Pac. 616. Upon an examination of the record in this case, we find no fundamental error, and the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the guilt of the appellant.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, J., being disqualified, having presided at the trial of appellant in the district court, did not participate in the consideration of this cause. DOYEE, J., concurs.

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

FURMAN, P. J.

No brief has been filed in this case on the part of appellant, and no appearance has been made in his behalf. It is the duty of this court to decide questions properly presented,, and not to brief cases. Where counsel do not appear in court and present the questions upon which they rely, either by brief or oral argument, this court will not do more than examine the record for fundamental errors. See Henson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 6, 113 Pac. 224; Price v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 147, 113 Pac. 1061; Mingle v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 535, 115 Pac. 616. Upon an examination of the record in this case, we find no fundamental error, and the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the guilt of the appellant.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, J., being disqualified, having presided at the trial of appellant in the district court, did not participate in the consideration of this cause. DOYEE, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 120, 121 P. 791, 7 Okla. Crim. 40, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack