Potts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Potts v. State

1911 OK CR 512, 118 P. 1113, 6 Okla. Crim. 687, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 499

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 24, 1911

DocketNo. A-787.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 512 (Potts 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

Potts v. State, 1911 OK CR 512, 118 P. 1113, 6 Okla. Crim. 687, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 499 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kiowa county at the January, 1910, term, upon a charge of transporting whisky from the south side of Main street in the town of Manitou, Tillman county, Oklahoma, to the north side of said street in said town in Kiowa county, Oklahoma. A number of errors are complained of in the petition in error and brief; among others, error of the trial court in giving the following instruction:

"The defendant is always presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by competent testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, and unless the evidence in this case does -this, you will find the defendant 'not guilty,' but under the plea of the defendant in this cause, it will be the duty of the defendant to' show to your satisfaction that the whisky was an interstate shipment, and that he was conveying the same to his own home, after having reecived the same from the interstate shipper.''

The testimony tends to show that plaintiff in error was a farmer living near- Manitou; that he had bought a shipment of fruit trees from a nursery at McKinney, Tex.; that he had gone to town for the purpose of receiving the fruit trees and when they were unpacked three pints of whisky were found in a package in the shipment with the words "Presented to John Potts'', written thereon. He took the whisky and the trees, and had not arrived at home when arrested. The instruction of the court, supra, based upon this record, is prejudicial error. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kiowa county at the January, 1910, term, upon a charge of transporting whisky from the south side of Main street in the town of Manitou, Tillman county, Oklahoma, to the north side of said street in said town in Kiowa county, Oklahoma. A number of errors are complained of in the petition in error and brief; among others, error of the trial court in giving the following instruction:

"The defendant is always presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by competent testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, and unless the evidence in this case does -this, you will find the defendant 'not guilty,' but under the plea of the defendant in this cause, it will be the duty of the defendant to' show to your satisfaction that the whisky was an interstate shipment, and that he was conveying the same to his own home, after having reecived the same from the interstate shipper.''

The testimony tends to show that plaintiff in error was a farmer living near- Manitou; that he had bought a shipment of fruit trees from a nursery at McKinney, Tex.; that he had gone to town for the purpose of receiving the fruit trees and when they were unpacked three pints of whisky were found in a package in the shipment with the words "Presented to John Potts'', written thereon. He took the whisky and the trees, and had not arrived at home when arrested. The instruction of the court, supra, based upon this record, is prejudicial error. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 512, 118 P. 1113, 6 Okla. Crim. 687, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.