Newton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Newton v. State

1927 OK CR 111, 254 P. 983, 36 Okla. Crim. 407, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 206

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 9, 1927

DocketNo. A-5697.

StatusPublished

This text of 1927 OK CR 111 (Newton 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

Newton v. State, 1927 OK CR 111, 254 P. 983, 36 Okla. Crim. 407, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Okla. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, J.

This appeal was filed July 14, 1925, and briefs have been filed in support of the appeal.

The plaintiff in error was charged with the crime of murder and convicted, and his punishment was fixed at life in the penitentiary at hard labor. Under the rules of this court, where an appeal is not supported by briefs, it is assumed that the appeal has been abandoned or is without merit. This court has examined the record and finds that the information sufficiently charges the offense, that the evidence supports the charge, that the instructions of the court were reasonably fair to plaintiff in error, that there were no- errors in the introduction of the testimony prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error, and that the plaintiff was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, J.

This appeal was filed July 14, 1925, and briefs have been filed in support of the appeal.

The plaintiff in error was charged with the crime of murder and convicted, and his punishment was fixed at life in the penitentiary at hard labor. Under the rules of this court, where an appeal is not supported by briefs, it is assumed that the appeal has been abandoned or is without merit. This court has examined the record and finds that the information sufficiently charges the offense, that the evidence supports the charge, that the instructions of the court were reasonably fair to plaintiff in error, that there were no- errors in the introduction of the testimony prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error, and that the plaintiff was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK CR 111, 254 P. 983, 36 Okla. Crim. 407, 1927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-state-oklacrimapp-1927.