Roberts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Roberts v. State

1915 OK CR 78, 145 P. 1166, 11 Okla. Crim. 690, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 80

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1915

DocketNo. A-2144.

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK CR 78 (Roberts 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

Roberts v. State, 1915 OK CR 78, 145 P. 1166, 11 Okla. Crim. 690, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 80 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information charging the unlawful sale of whisky to Walter Norton. On the 14th day of October, 1913, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars and costs. Only two questions are urged for a reversal of the judgment: The first is that the court erred in giving the statutory definition in an instruction on reasonable doubt. No objection was made or exception taken to the giving of this instruction. For this reason we cannot do otherwise than hold that the instruction was harmless error. Harris v. State, 10 Okla. Or. 416; 137 Pac. 365. Four or five witnesses testified as to the transaction. Plaintiff in error offered no testimony. AVe think that this appeal is without merit. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information charging the unlawful sale of whisky to Walter Norton. On the 14th day of October, 1913, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars and costs. Only two questions are urged for a reversal of the judgment: The first is that the court erred in giving the statutory definition in an instruction on reasonable doubt. No objection was made or exception taken to the giving of this instruction. For this reason we cannot do otherwise than hold that the instruction was harmless error. Harris v. State, 10 Okla. Or. 416; 137 Pac. 365. Four or five witnesses testified as to the transaction. Plaintiff in error offered no testimony. AVe think that this appeal is without merit. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK CR 78, 145 P. 1166, 11 Okla. Crim. 690, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-oklacrimapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack