Robinson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Robinson v. State

1912 OK CR 99, 120 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 736, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 343

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 27, 1912

DocketNo. A-1181.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 99 (Robinson 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

Robinson v. State, 1912 OK CR 99, 120 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 736, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 343 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the March, 1911, term of the county court of Atoka county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and on the 5th day of April, thereafter, was adjudged to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The proof shows that the intoxicating liquor found in the possession of the accused was brought in from Texas, and had not reached its destination at the time it was seized. There is a total want of proof upon the question of intent. Possession alone being insufficient to sustain a judgment, and the liquor having come by interstate shipment, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the March, 1911, term of the county court of Atoka county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and on the 5th day of April, thereafter, was adjudged to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The proof shows that the intoxicating liquor found in the possession of the accused was brought in from Texas, and had not reached its destination at the time it was seized. There is a total want of proof upon the question of intent. Possession alone being insufficient to sustain a judgment, and the liquor having come by interstate shipment, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 99, 120 P. 1131, 6 Okla. Crim. 736, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.