Rose v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Rose v. State

1925 OK CR 322, 236 P. 1118, 31 Okla. Crim. 59, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 308

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 22, 1925

DocketNo. A-5177.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 322 (Rose 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

Rose v. State, 1925 OK CR 322, 236 P. 1118, 31 Okla. Crim. 59, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 308 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, D. N. Rose, was convicted on a charge that on July 12, 1923, within the corporate limits of the city of Tulsa, he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor, namely, 35 gallons of Choctaw beer, with the intention of selling the same, and in *60 accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be confined for 30 days in the county jail. From the judgment he appeals, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made in his behalf in this court, and we are not advised what plaintiff in error relies upon for a reversal. In cases of this kind we do not consider it the duty of the court to go into a careful examination of the evidence, to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. We have examined the information and the instructions of the court, and we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, D. N. Rose, was convicted on a charge that on July 12, 1923, within the corporate limits of the city of Tulsa, he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor, namely, 35 gallons of Choctaw beer, with the intention of selling the same, and in *60 accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be confined for 30 days in the county jail. From the judgment he appeals, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made in his behalf in this court, and we are not advised what plaintiff in error relies upon for a reversal. In cases of this kind we do not consider it the duty of the court to go into a careful examination of the evidence, to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. We have examined the information and the instructions of the court, and we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 322, 236 P. 1118, 31 Okla. Crim. 59, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.