Posey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Posey v. State

1931 OK CR 87, 296 P. 527, 50 Okla. Crim. 129, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 74

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 28, 1931

DocketNo. A-7794.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1931 OK CR 87 (Posey 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

Posey v. State, 1931 OK CR 87, 296 P. 527, 50 Okla. Crim. 129, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 74 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county on a charge of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The case was tried the latter part of September and first part of October, 1929. The appeal was lodged in this court April 2, 1930. No briefs in support of the appeal have been filed, and no' appearance for oral argument 1 was made at the time the case was submitted. We have read the record with care to ascertain if defendant had a , fair trial or if any errors substantially prejudicial were / committed.

The record discloses that on April 16,1929, Sam Frost and his wife lived at the town of Bixby; that about midnight of that date defendant and his wife drove from their home in Leonard to Bixby, and the wife remained in the car with the engine running and defendant went on the porch and knocked at the door and awakened Frost and his wife; that Frost went out on the porch, and defendant immediately shot him with a pistol, from which death resulted almost instantly. Defendant then returned to the car and they drove away. The defense is what is sometimes referred to as the unwritten law; that is, that Frost had been criminally intimate with the wife of defendant covering a period of about two years prior thereto'. Both defendant and his wife testified to the homicide sub-. stantially as stated. It is apparent from the record that defendant knew of illicit relations between his wife and *131 the deceased and deliberately decided to take the law into Ms own bands and kill Frost. There is also some evidence which tends to indicate that a money consideration between them was discussed. The fact that deceased was guilty of an offense in his relations with the wife of defendant did not justify defendant in seeking out and killing deceased. “The right to avenge a wrong done a female member of one’s family by killing the wrongdoer” does not exist in this state. It is not permitted one thus wronged to take the law into his own hand and wreak private vengeance on the wrongdoer. January v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 166, 181 Pac. 514; Pickett v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 289, 268 Pac. 732. The record amply sustains the verdict and judgment.

The case is affirmed.

DAYENPOET, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county on a charge of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The case was tried the latter part of September and first part of October, 1929. The appeal was lodged in this court April 2, 1930. No briefs in support of the appeal have been filed, and no' appearance for oral argument 1 was made at the time the case was submitted. We have read the record with care to ascertain if defendant had a , fair trial or if any errors substantially prejudicial were / committed.

The record discloses that on April 16,1929, Sam Frost and his wife lived at the town of Bixby; that about midnight of that date defendant and his wife drove from their home in Leonard to Bixby, and the wife remained in the car with the engine running and defendant went on the porch and knocked at the door and awakened Frost and his wife; that Frost went out on the porch, and defendant immediately shot him with a pistol, from which death resulted almost instantly. Defendant then returned to the car and they drove away. The defense is what is sometimes referred to as the unwritten law; that is, that Frost had been criminally intimate with the wife of defendant covering a period of about two years prior thereto'. Both defendant and his wife testified to the homicide sub-. stantially as stated. It is apparent from the record that defendant knew of illicit relations between his wife and *131 the deceased and deliberately decided to take the law into Ms own bands and kill Frost. There is also some evidence which tends to indicate that a money consideration between them was discussed. The fact that deceased was guilty of an offense in his relations with the wife of defendant did not justify defendant in seeking out and killing deceased. “The right to avenge a wrong done a female member of one’s family by killing the wrongdoer” does not exist in this state. It is not permitted one thus wronged to take the law into his own hand and wreak private vengeance on the wrongdoer. January v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 166, 181 Pac. 514; Pickett v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 289, 268 Pac. 732. The record amply sustains the verdict and judgment.

The case is affirmed.

DAYENPOET, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 87, 296 P. 527, 50 Okla. Crim. 129, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posey-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack