Reniff v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Reniff v. State

1932 OK CR 139, 13 P.2d 593, 53 Okla. Crim. 451, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 131

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 22, 1932

DocketNo. A-8364.

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK CR 139 (Reniff 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

Reniff v. State, 1932 OK CR 139, 13 P.2d 593, 53 Okla. Crim. 451, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 131 (Okla. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Comanche county of forgery in the second degree in passing a forged check which was negotiated to Lewis and Allen, who operated a filling station at Lawton. We deem it unnecessary to recite the facts. They are very similar to those proven in the case of Reniff v. State,53 Okla. Cr. 448, 13 P.2d 592, just decided, the same defendant as here.

Complaint is made that the court permitted too great a latitude in the cross-examination of defendant's witnesses which tended to prejudice the jury against him. There is some merit in the contention, and we are of the opinion that justice will be served by reducing the punishment assessed to a term of two years in the state penitentiary, and, as modified, the case is affirmed. *Page 451

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

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Comanche county of forgery in the second degree in passing a forged check which was negotiated to Lewis and Allen, who operated a filling station at Lawton. We deem it unnecessary to recite the facts. They are very similar to those proven in the case of Reniff v. State,53 Okla. Cr. 448, 13 P.2d 592, just decided, the same defendant as here.

Complaint is made that the court permitted too great a latitude in the cross-examination of defendant's witnesses which tended to prejudice the jury against him. There is some merit in the contention, and we are of the opinion that justice will be served by reducing the punishment assessed to a term of two years in the state penitentiary, and, as modified, the case is affirmed. *Page 451

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK CR 139, 13 P.2d 593, 53 Okla. Crim. 451, 1932 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reniff-v-state-oklacrimapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack