Taggart v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Taggart v. State

1916 OK CR 78, 159 P. 940, 12 Okla. Crim. 509, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 18, 1916

DocketNo. A-2570.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1916 OK CR 78 (Taggart 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

Taggart v. State, 1916 OK CR 78, 159 P. 940, 12 Okla. Crim. 509, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85 (Okla. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, J.

The plaintiff in error was prosecuted and convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to illegally dispose of same.

The state confesses error on the ground that the verdict and judgment is not supported by the evidence; and we have carefully read the evidence, and are forced to the same conclusion. Had the state elected to prosecute plaintiff in error for illegally transporting and conveying the beer found in his buggy, the record before us would sustain a conviction, but there is a total failure to prove that he intended to sejl or otherwise furnish it to others. There was considerable evidence concerning a fishing camp out on the river which bore the earmarks of a “booze joint,” but there was no evidence admitted which connected the plaintiff in error with this camp. There was some incompetent, *510 hearsay evidence tendered, which was properly ruled out by the court, which tended to connect him with this camp; and this tendered evidence doubtless left its impress upon the jury, and resulted in the verdict returned. The plaintiff in error may be guilty of the offense charged, but the law will not permit a conviction in a haphazard way. If it did, no citizen’s liberty would be secure; for even the most upright might become the victim of hearsay testimony.

The judgment is reversed.

DOYLE, P. J., and ARMSTRONG, J., concur.

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

BRETT, J.

The plaintiff in error was prosecuted and convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to illegally dispose of same.

The state confesses error on the ground that the verdict and judgment is not supported by the evidence; and we have carefully read the evidence, and are forced to the same conclusion. Had the state elected to prosecute plaintiff in error for illegally transporting and conveying the beer found in his buggy, the record before us would sustain a conviction, but there is a total failure to prove that he intended to sejl or otherwise furnish it to others. There was considerable evidence concerning a fishing camp out on the river which bore the earmarks of a “booze joint,” but there was no evidence admitted which connected the plaintiff in error with this camp. There was some incompetent, *510 hearsay evidence tendered, which was properly ruled out by the court, which tended to connect him with this camp; and this tendered evidence doubtless left its impress upon the jury, and resulted in the verdict returned. The plaintiff in error may be guilty of the offense charged, but the law will not permit a conviction in a haphazard way. If it did, no citizen’s liberty would be secure; for even the most upright might become the victim of hearsay testimony.

The judgment is reversed.

DOYLE, P. J., and ARMSTRONG, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK CR 78, 159 P. 940, 12 Okla. Crim. 509, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taggart-v-state-oklacrimapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack