Scheffe v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Scheffe v. State

1925 OK CR 387, 238 P. 510, 31 Okla. Crim. 233, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 393

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 18, 1925

DocketNo. A-4907.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 387 (Scheffe 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

Scheffe v. State, 1925 OK CR 387, 238 P. 510, 31 Okla. Crim. 233, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 393 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and appeals. No briefs have been filed by the plaintiff in error nor the state. We have examined the record, which discloses that on the date in question certain officers in the nighttime observed a car go to the place of residence of the defendant, and one of the occupants of the car got out and went to the door of the house and soon returned carrying a jug. As the-car left, it was stopped by the officers, its occupants arrested, and the jug seized. It contained a quart of whisky. The two occupants of the car testified that they purchased it from the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error did not testify and offered no evidence. The verdict is fully supported by the evidence, and the appeal is without merit. The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and appeals. No briefs have been filed by the plaintiff in error nor the state. We have examined the record, which discloses that on the date in question certain officers in the nighttime observed a car go to the place of residence of the defendant, and one of the occupants of the car got out and went to the door of the house and soon returned carrying a jug. As the-car left, it was stopped by the officers, its occupants arrested, and the jug seized. It contained a quart of whisky. The two occupants of the car testified that they purchased it from the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error did not testify and offered no evidence. The verdict is fully supported by the evidence, and the appeal is without merit. The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 387, 238 P. 510, 31 Okla. Crim. 233, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheffe-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.