Peel v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Peel v. State

1912 OK CR 88, 120 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 730, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 340

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 23, 1912

DocketNo. A-1323.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 88 (Peel 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

Peel v. State, 1912 OK CR 88, 120 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 730, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 340 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Roy Peel, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the upon an information charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with the intention to violate provisions of the prohibition law. Upon a trial had the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at a term of one hundred and twenty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of four hundred dollars. May 11, 1911, the court sentenced the defendant in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Numerous errors are assigned in the petition, but from a careful examination of the record our conclusion is that the errors alleged are destitute of merit. The information sufficiently charges the offense. The exceptions to the rulings of the court on the taking of testimony are not well taken, and the law of the case was fairly presented in the instructions given. We cannot see that any mistake has been made or injustice done. The judgment of trial court is therefore affirmed. Mandate to issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Roy Peel, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the upon an information charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with the intention to violate provisions of the prohibition law. Upon a trial had the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at a term of one hundred and twenty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of four hundred dollars. May 11, 1911, the court sentenced the defendant in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Numerous errors are assigned in the petition, but from a careful examination of the record our conclusion is that the errors alleged are destitute of merit. The information sufficiently charges the offense. The exceptions to the rulings of the court on the taking of testimony are not well taken, and the law of the case was fairly presented in the instructions given. We cannot see that any mistake has been made or injustice done. The judgment of trial court is therefore affirmed. Mandate to issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 88, 120 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 730, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peel-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.