Sexton v. State

1930 OK CR 484, 294 P. 652, 49 Okla. Crim. 395, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 257
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 19, 1930
DocketNo. A-7031.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1930 OK CR 484 (Sexton 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
Sexton v. State, 1930 OK CR 484, 294 P. 652, 49 Okla. Crim. 395, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 257 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Craig county of aiding a felon, and was sentenced to- serve a term of one year in the state penitentiary.

This is a companion case to No. A-7022, McGhee v. State, 49 Okla. Cr. 387, 294 Pac. 649, just decided. The information in that case is the same as in the instant case. What was there said as to the sufficiency of the information, the statement of facts, and the matters proven are applicable in this case. The evidence on the part of the state in this case is substantially the same as in the Mc-Ghee Case. Defendant did not take the stand, and offered no testimony. No explanation is made of his acts, nor his failure to make a record- of the proceedings by which the *396 custody of White, the fugitive, was obtained. No material error is made to appear.

The case is affirmed.

On Petition for Rehearing.

Plaintiff in error in his petition for rehearing earnestly contends that the statute upon which the prosecution is based, section 1621, Comp. Stat. 1921, is unconstitutional. This was not urged in the briefs in the first instance, so was not discussed in the opinion. The statute has been treated as a valid statute in the Cole Case, the Franks Case, and the Huckaby Case, cited in the opinion. We are not impressed with argument now made that the statute is void. It is not in conflict with the federal or the state Constitution, and is valid.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McClendon v. State
1957 OK CR 117 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1957)
Melton v. State
1932 OK CR 118 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1930 OK CR 484, 294 P. 652, 49 Okla. Crim. 395, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sexton-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.