Sublett v. State

1930 OK CR 392, 292 P. 79, 48 Okla. Crim. 438, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 151
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 6, 1930
DocketNo. A-7399.
StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 392 (Sublett 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
Sublett v. State, 1930 OK CR 392, 292 P. 79, 48 Okla. Crim. 438, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 151 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

Tbe plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in tbe district court of Greer county of tbe crime of grand larceny, and bis punishment fixed at confinement in tbe penitentiary for a term of one year.

The evidence of tbe state was that tbe defendant and one L. A. Duffer, who was jointly charged with him, stole two bales of cotton from tbe Willow Gin Company and A. K. Key, tbe manager, and sold them to tbe compress at Mangum. Tbe defendant did not take tbe witness stand and offered no evidence in bis behalf.

Defendant contends that tbe trial court erred in overruling bis demurrer to tbe evidence of tbe state, for tbe reason that tbe same was insufficient to support tbe verdict of tbe jury. All of tbe facts and circumstances in evidence in the case point unerringly to tbe defendant *439 as one of tbe thieves, and are sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

For the reasons stated, the cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1930 OK CR 392, 292 P. 79, 48 Okla. Crim. 438, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sublett-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.