Scott v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Scott v. State

1926 OK CR 108, 244 P. 449, 33 Okla. Crim. 419, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 105

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 20, 1926

DocketNo. A-5417.

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK CR 108 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 1926 OK CR 108, 244 P. 449, 33 Okla. Crim. 419, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 105 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This conviction rests wholly upon the testimony of the prosecuting witness, who testified that he saw the defendant, through a window in a stock barn, at a carnival in Comanche, about 9 o’clock at night, sell a half pint of whisky to one Bill Jackson; that this stock barn was dimly lighted on the inside by a lantern.

The defendant, his son, who was there present, and Jackson all denied that there was any such sale. The phys *420 ical facts shown cast some doubt upon the accuracy of the story told by the prosecuting witness.

We think the evidence as a whole was not indicative of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — not sufficient to cover the presumption of innocence.

The cause is reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This conviction rests wholly upon the testimony of the prosecuting witness, who testified that he saw the defendant, through a window in a stock barn, at a carnival in Comanche, about 9 o’clock at night, sell a half pint of whisky to one Bill Jackson; that this stock barn was dimly lighted on the inside by a lantern.

The defendant, his son, who was there present, and Jackson all denied that there was any such sale. The phys *420 ical facts shown cast some doubt upon the accuracy of the story told by the prosecuting witness.

We think the evidence as a whole was not indicative of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — not sufficient to cover the presumption of innocence.

The cause is reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK CR 108, 244 P. 449, 33 Okla. Crim. 419, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.