Robinson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Robinson v. State

1917 OK CR 28, 162 P. 239, 13 Okla. Crim. 104, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 32

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1917

DocketNo. A-2626.

StatusPublished

This text of 1917 OK CR 28 (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, 1917 OK CR 28, 162 P. 239, 13 Okla. Crim. 104, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 32 (Okla. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, J.

In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior court of Pottawatomie county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to 30 days in jail, and to pay a fine of $50.

We have examined the briefs and carefully read the entire record, and think there is no merit whatever in-the appeal. The facts are that the plaintiff in error and two others were overtaken on the night of September 3. 1915, on a public highway with 42 sacks of whisky in a spring wagon. A severance was had, and in the record before us the plaintiff in error offered no defense whatever; a clear case was made against him, and he should have extended his thanks to the jury for the verdict returned.

The judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and ARMSTRONG, J.. concur.

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

BRETT, J.

In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior court of Pottawatomie county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to 30 days in jail, and to pay a fine of $50.

We have examined the briefs and carefully read the entire record, and think there is no merit whatever in-the appeal. The facts are that the plaintiff in error and two others were overtaken on the night of September 3. 1915, on a public highway with 42 sacks of whisky in a spring wagon. A severance was had, and in the record before us the plaintiff in error offered no defense whatever; a clear case was made against him, and he should have extended his thanks to the jury for the verdict returned.

The judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and ARMSTRONG, J.. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK CR 28, 162 P. 239, 13 Okla. Crim. 104, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1917.