State v. Starcher

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Starcher

227 P. 386, 39 Idaho 327, 1924 Ida. LEXIS 32

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 P. 386 (State v. Starcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Starcher, 227 P. 386, 39 Idaho 327, 1924 Ida. LEXIS 32 (Idaho 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

*328 BUDGE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. A motion for a new trial was overruled. From the judgment of conviction and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

The transcript on appeal was filed in this court on March 21, 1923, but no 'brief has been filed, by appellant. When the cause was reached upon the calendar and set down for hearing appellant was neither present dor represented by counsel. Under such circumstances and in accordance with Rule 48 this court may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal, which results in an affirmance of the judgment below or examine the record for fundamental error and render its decision on the merits. We have therefore examined the record but find no fundamental error. The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee and Wm. E. Lee, 'JJ., concur.

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

*328 BUDGE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. A motion for a new trial was overruled. From the judgment of conviction and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

The transcript on appeal was filed in this court on March 21, 1923, but no 'brief has been filed, by appellant. When the cause was reached upon the calendar and set down for hearing appellant was neither present dor represented by counsel. Under such circumstances and in accordance with Rule 48 this court may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal, which results in an affirmance of the judgment below or examine the record for fundamental error and render its decision on the merits. We have therefore examined the record but find no fundamental error. The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee and Wm. E. Lee, 'JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 P. 386, 39 Idaho 327, 1924 Ida. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-starcher-idaho-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack