Roberts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Roberts v. State

1935 OK CR 85, 47 P.2d 604, 57 Okla. Crim. 238, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 55

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 12, 1935

DocketNo. A-8851.

StatusPublished

This text of 1935 OK CR 85 (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, 1935 OK CR 85, 47 P.2d 604, 57 Okla. Crim. 238, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 55 (Okla. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Harmon *239 county of second-degree burglary and Ms punishment fixed at 2 years in the state penitentiary.

On the date charged, defendant, with two companions, stole about sixteen bushels of wheat from the barn of one Yates. The car used by defendant and his companions was parked some distance from the house; it was watched by the sheriff and a deputy; when defendant and his companions returned to the car with the wheat, in sacks, they were arrested.

Defendant’s only contention is that there is no' proof of a breaking, that the evidence shows no more than petit larceny. Defendant testified and admitted stealing the wheat, but insisted he took it through an open window. He introduced other witnesses who testified as to tracks, spilled wheat, etc., indicating that the wheat was taken through the window. The state’s evidence is to the effect that entry was gained through a latched door. The court properly instructed the jury on the question of burglary.

This court will not disturb the finding of the jury where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the jury.

We find no substantial error. The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Harmon *239 county of second-degree burglary and Ms punishment fixed at 2 years in the state penitentiary.

On the date charged, defendant, with two companions, stole about sixteen bushels of wheat from the barn of one Yates. The car used by defendant and his companions was parked some distance from the house; it was watched by the sheriff and a deputy; when defendant and his companions returned to the car with the wheat, in sacks, they were arrested.

Defendant’s only contention is that there is no' proof of a breaking, that the evidence shows no more than petit larceny. Defendant testified and admitted stealing the wheat, but insisted he took it through an open window. He introduced other witnesses who testified as to tracks, spilled wheat, etc., indicating that the wheat was taken through the window. The state’s evidence is to the effect that entry was gained through a latched door. The court properly instructed the jury on the question of burglary.

This court will not disturb the finding of the jury where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the jury.

We find no substantial error. The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK CR 85, 47 P.2d 604, 57 Okla. Crim. 238, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-oklacrimapp-1935.