Russell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Russell v. State

1926 OK CR 218, 250 P. 551, 35 Okla. Crim. 74, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 381

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 15, 1926

DocketNo. A-5471.

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK CR 218 (Russell 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

Russell v. State, 1926 OK CR 218, 250 P. 551, 35 Okla. Crim. 74, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 381 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ed Russell, was convicted on an information charging that he did keep and maintain a place in the town of Keystone, where intoxicating liquor was received and kept for the purpose of sale, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to pay a fine of $200, and be confined in the county jail for 60 days. From the judgment he appealed by filing in this court March 10, 1925, a petition in error with case-made, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made in his behalf in this court.

Without the aid of oral argument or brief, we have examined the record, and find that the testimony of the *75 11 witnesses called by the state sustain the charge. Their testimony is undisputed, and, no prejudicial error of law occurring at the trial, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ed Russell, was convicted on an information charging that he did keep and maintain a place in the town of Keystone, where intoxicating liquor was received and kept for the purpose of sale, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to pay a fine of $200, and be confined in the county jail for 60 days. From the judgment he appealed by filing in this court March 10, 1925, a petition in error with case-made, but no brief has been filed and no appearance made in his behalf in this court.

Without the aid of oral argument or brief, we have examined the record, and find that the testimony of the *75 11 witnesses called by the state sustain the charge. Their testimony is undisputed, and, no prejudicial error of law occurring at the trial, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK CR 218, 250 P. 551, 35 Okla. Crim. 74, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.