Reams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Reams v. State

1914 OK CR 88, 140 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 690, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 218

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 4, 1914

DocketNo. A-1989.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 88 (Reams 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

Reams v. State, 1914 OK CR 88, 140 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 690, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 218 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convieted upon an information which charged that “S. D. Reams did, in Oklahoma county, on the 7th day of August, 1912, commit the crime of having intoxicating liquors in his possession with the unlawful intent on the part of said defendant to sell, barter, give away and otherwise furnish the same to parties unknown." Many alleged errors are assigned *691 as grounds for a reversal of the judgment, but it is only necessary to notice the one, “that the court erred in overruling a motion of the defendant to direct a verdict of not guilt y.” A. E. Smith and J. B. Dalton testified that they were deputy enforcement officers and went into the pool hall at 128 West First street in Oklahoma City, and had a conversation with a colored man, and Smith asked Mm for a half pint of whisky; that the negro went out “through the back door, the rear door some place,” and when he came back he had a half pint of whisky, and Smith gave him fifty cents for it. The defendant was not present, and there was no proof that the negro was employed by him, or connected with him in any way. In order to support a conviction for the offense charged, there must be some evidence tending to show the defendant’s possession of the intoxicating liquor. There was no such evidence in this ease. Therefore, the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction, and the motion to direct a verdict of not guilty should have been sustained. The judgment of conviction is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convieted upon an information which charged that “S. D. Reams did, in Oklahoma county, on the 7th day of August, 1912, commit the crime of having intoxicating liquors in his possession with the unlawful intent on the part of said defendant to sell, barter, give away and otherwise furnish the same to parties unknown." Many alleged errors are assigned *691 as grounds for a reversal of the judgment, but it is only necessary to notice the one, “that the court erred in overruling a motion of the defendant to direct a verdict of not guilt y.” A. E. Smith and J. B. Dalton testified that they were deputy enforcement officers and went into the pool hall at 128 West First street in Oklahoma City, and had a conversation with a colored man, and Smith asked Mm for a half pint of whisky; that the negro went out “through the back door, the rear door some place,” and when he came back he had a half pint of whisky, and Smith gave him fifty cents for it. The defendant was not present, and there was no proof that the negro was employed by him, or connected with him in any way. In order to support a conviction for the offense charged, there must be some evidence tending to show the defendant’s possession of the intoxicating liquor. There was no such evidence in this ease. Therefore, the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction, and the motion to direct a verdict of not guilty should have been sustained. The judgment of conviction is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 88, 140 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 690, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reams-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.