Simmons v. State

1924 OK CR 297, 230 P. 757, 28 Okla. Crim. 329, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 291
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 29, 1924
DocketNo. A-4659.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1924 OK CR 297 (Simmons 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
Simmons v. State, 1924 OK CR 297, 230 P. 757, 28 Okla. Crim. 329, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 291 (Okla. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

The information in this ease charges that defendant, Eugene Simmons, did transport four gallons of whis-ky from a point unknown, in Haskell county, to Main street, in the town of Haskell. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty and fixing his punishment at 60 days in jail and a fine of $100. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction.

The evidence shows that on the date alleged, Deputy Sheriff Whittaker saw defendant Simmons-and Boyce Little-john driving down Main street in the town of Haskell, about 3 o’clock in the morning; there was a three-gallon keg and a one-gallon jug of corn whisky in the buggy; Littlejohn was driving. It appears that the horse and buggy belonged to defendant Simmons.

As a witness in his own behalf, the defendant Simmons testified that he had been out to the home of his mother-in-law, staying all night, and got up about 3 o’clock to go to Haskell to catch the 9 o’clock train to Muskogee; that as he left his mother-in-law’s place Littlejohn came along; and that he rode to town with him. He denied having any interest in the whisky.

After an examination of the record, we are satisfied that the errors assigned are without merit; the information is sufficient, and the court properly overruled defendant’s objection to the introduction of evidence on the ground that the information does not state facts sufficient to charge an offense; the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict; there *331 is no prejudicial error in the ruling upon the admission of testimony; and the instructions fully stated the law applicable to the case.

The judgment of the lower court is, accordingly, affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and'BESSEY, J., concur.

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

Related

Qualls v. State
1925 OK CR 294 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1924 OK CR 297, 230 P. 757, 28 Okla. Crim. 329, 1924 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-state-oklacrimapp-1924.