Polk v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Polk v. State

1933 OK CR 85, 24 P.2d 1119, 55 Okla. Crim. 36, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 27

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 4, 1933

DocketNo. A-8562.

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK CR 85 (Polk 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

Polk v. State, 1933 OK CR 85, 24 P.2d 1119, 55 Okla. Crim. 36, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 27 (Okla. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter in this opinion referred to as the defendant, was convicted of larceny of domestic fowls, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the State Reformatory at Granite, Okla., and appeals.

The testimony on behalf of the state shows that the defendant and E. S. Watkins were found in possession of a number of Rhode Island Red chickens, stolen from the chicken house of G. J. Nisle. The case was argued orally to the court by the attorneys for the plaintiff in error and the state. A careful consideration and examination of the record fails to disclose any fundamental or prejudicial errors sufficient to warrant a reversal. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.

The case is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter in this opinion referred to as the defendant, was convicted of larceny of domestic fowls, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the State Reformatory at Granite, Okla., and appeals.

The testimony on behalf of the state shows that the defendant and E. S. Watkins were found in possession of a number of Rhode Island Red chickens, stolen from the chicken house of G. J. Nisle. The case was argued orally to the court by the attorneys for the plaintiff in error and the state. A careful consideration and examination of the record fails to disclose any fundamental or prejudicial errors sufficient to warrant a reversal. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.

The case is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK CR 85, 24 P.2d 1119, 55 Okla. Crim. 36, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polk-v-state-oklacrimapp-1933.