Pickett v. State

248 P. 352, 35 Okla. Crim. 60, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 289
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedAugust 7, 1926
DocketNo. A-5628.
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 248 P. 352 (Pickett 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
Pickett v. State, 248 P. 352, 35 Okla. Crim. 60, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 289 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Stephens county on a charge of selling whisky, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail. The only contention argued by defendant is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. On the part of the state, the evidence is that, on the 14th of January, one Noah Johnson and his son went to the residence of defendant and there bought a quart of whisky and gave defendant a check for $3. The evidence is rather vague as to whether the whisky was handed to Johnson by defendant or some boy who brought it into the house, but is definite that the purchase was made as alleged.

The defense is an alibi, and in addition, it was sought by cross-examination to show that the two witnesses for the state were intoxicated and not in a condition to give credible testimony, and, further, that the principal witness had made contradictory statements out *61 of court. It is too well settled to require a citation of authority that where' the evidence, although contradicted, if believed, is such that the jury may logically find a defendant guilty, the weight and credibility of the evidence is peculiarly within the province of the jury, and the verdict of the jury in such case will not be disturbed by this court.

We do not perceive any unusual circumstance here which takes this case out of the usual rule and which would warrant this court in disturbing the verdict on the weight of the evidence.

The case is affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concurr.

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

Related

Stevens v. State
1942 OK CR 55 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1942)
Harvey v. State
1941 OK CR 150 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1941)
Hicks v. State
1940 OK CR 116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)
Pooler v. State
1940 OK CR 91 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)
Camp v. State
1940 OK CR 86 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)
Spann v. State
1940 OK CR 74 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)
Hensley v. State
1940 OK CR 47 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1940)
Cotanney v. State
1939 OK CR 96 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1939)
Kimbrough v. State
1939 OK CR 33 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1939)
Kizer v. State
1938 OK CR 121 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
Hardin v. State
1938 OK CR 122 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
McCormick v. State
1938 OK CR 62 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
Phillips v. State
1938 OK CR 22 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
Orme v. State
1938 OK CR 3 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
Houston v. State
1937 OK CR 161 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1937)
Goodnight v. State
1937 OK CR 149 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1937)
Bentley v. State
1937 OK CR 141 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1937)
Coppage v. State
1937 OK CR 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1937)
Jones v. State
1937 OK CR 96 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1937)
Armstrong v. State
1937 OK CR 84 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 P. 352, 35 Okla. Crim. 60, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickett-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.