Renfro v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Renfro v. State

1926 OK CR 115, 245 P. 1115, 33 Okla. Crim. 374, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 20, 1926

DocketNo. A-5419.

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK CR 115 (Renfro 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

Renfro v. State, 1926 OK CR 115, 245 P. 1115, 33 Okla. Crim. 374, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 117 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BESSEY, P. J.

No briefs have been filed in support of this appeal. The petition in error contains but one assignment of error worthy of notice. The conviction rests chiefly upon the testimony of two accomplices, who employed the defendant to change the engine numbers for the purpose of concealing the fact *375 that the car was a stolen car. These accomplices were corroborated by a disinterested witness, who testified that the defendant was in the rear of the garage, where this ear was, as late as 12:30 the night the numbers were said to have been changed. This, along with other attending circumstances, was sufficient under the state of facts shown in this case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

BESSEY, P. J.

No briefs have been filed in support of this appeal. The petition in error contains but one assignment of error worthy of notice. The conviction rests chiefly upon the testimony of two accomplices, who employed the defendant to change the engine numbers for the purpose of concealing the fact *375 that the car was a stolen car. These accomplices were corroborated by a disinterested witness, who testified that the defendant was in the rear of the garage, where this ear was, as late as 12:30 the night the numbers were said to have been changed. This, along with other attending circumstances, was sufficient under the state of facts shown in this case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK CR 115, 245 P. 1115, 33 Okla. Crim. 374, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renfro-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.