Reynolds v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Reynolds v. State

1925 OK CR 161, 234 P. 656, 29 Okla. Crim. 427, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 25, 1925

DocketNo. A-4851.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 161 (Reynolds 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

Reynolds v. State, 1925 OK CR 161, 234 P. 656, 29 Okla. Crim. 427, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

The information in this case charges that the defendants, Bill Reynolds, Monroe Van Winkle, and William Boss, on or about the 5th day of April, 1923, *428 unlawfully transported about one-half gallon of whisky from Broken Bow, to another point in McCurtain county near Coal Springs. The jury returned verdict finding each defendant guilty as charged in the information and fixing the punishment of each at confinement in the county jail for 80 days and a fine of $50. From the judgments rendered on the verdict they appeal, and assign as error that the verdicts are contrary to law because they are not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The testimony of four witnesses for the state supports the allegations of the information. Lon Miller, deputy sheriff, testified that he first saw the defendants at Broken Bow, about 8 o’clock Sunday afternoon; all three were in a single-seated Ford roadster car; that with two other officers he tried to stop them in Broken Bow, and they sped away, and the officers followed them in a car on the Idabel road and overtook them a mile south of Holly creek; that the defendant Bill Reynolds poured whisky out after the defendant’s car stopped. John Sage, Bill Calfee, and Paul Thorn testified in substance to the same facts as did the witness Miller.

Plaintiffs in error all testified as witnesses and denied having any whisky in the car, and denied that any one in their car poured any whisky out.

It is the province of the jury in a criminal case to try the issue joined by a plea of not guilty, and, if the evidence of the state uncontradicted will support a conviction, this court will not ordinarily interfere with the verdict against the defendant. The jury’s function is to determine on which side of the controversy the truth lies, where testimony as to material facts is in direct conflict and irreconcilable.

We are of opinion that under the evidence in this case the jury were fully warranted in finding all of the *429 defendants guilty in manner and form as charged in the information.

No reversible error having been shown, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., concurs. EDWARDS, J., absent.

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

DOYLE, J.

The information in this case charges that the defendants, Bill Reynolds, Monroe Van Winkle, and William Boss, on or about the 5th day of April, 1923, *428 unlawfully transported about one-half gallon of whisky from Broken Bow, to another point in McCurtain county near Coal Springs. The jury returned verdict finding each defendant guilty as charged in the information and fixing the punishment of each at confinement in the county jail for 80 days and a fine of $50. From the judgments rendered on the verdict they appeal, and assign as error that the verdicts are contrary to law because they are not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The testimony of four witnesses for the state supports the allegations of the information. Lon Miller, deputy sheriff, testified that he first saw the defendants at Broken Bow, about 8 o’clock Sunday afternoon; all three were in a single-seated Ford roadster car; that with two other officers he tried to stop them in Broken Bow, and they sped away, and the officers followed them in a car on the Idabel road and overtook them a mile south of Holly creek; that the defendant Bill Reynolds poured whisky out after the defendant’s car stopped. John Sage, Bill Calfee, and Paul Thorn testified in substance to the same facts as did the witness Miller.

Plaintiffs in error all testified as witnesses and denied having any whisky in the car, and denied that any one in their car poured any whisky out.

It is the province of the jury in a criminal case to try the issue joined by a plea of not guilty, and, if the evidence of the state uncontradicted will support a conviction, this court will not ordinarily interfere with the verdict against the defendant. The jury’s function is to determine on which side of the controversy the truth lies, where testimony as to material facts is in direct conflict and irreconcilable.

We are of opinion that under the evidence in this case the jury were fully warranted in finding all of the *429 defendants guilty in manner and form as charged in the information.

No reversible error having been shown, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

BESSEY, P. J., concurs. EDWARDS, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 161, 234 P. 656, 29 Okla. Crim. 427, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.