Taylor v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Taylor v. State

1931 OK CR 135, 297 P. 307, 50 Okla. Crim. 220, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 127

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 21, 1931

DocketNo. A-7694.

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK CR 135 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 1931 OK CR 135, 297 P. 307, 50 Okla. Crim. 220, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 127 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of choc beer, containing more than one-half of 1 per cent, alcohol measured by volume, and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent then and there on the part of the defendant to- sell, barter, give away, or otherwise furnish the same to others unlawfully, and in violation of the prohibitory law, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be imprisoned in the county jail for two months. Prom which judgment the defendant appeals.

The testimony shows that the officers went to the defendant’s home searching for a pair of shoes that was claimed to have been stolen; the defendant told him all he had was some choc beer in the basement; they were in the defendant’s home under a search warrant for shoes and not for intoxicating liquor.

No objection was made to the testimony offered by the state. In order that it may be considered by this court, *221 it was necessary for the defendant to object to the same and ask that it be excluded from the jury. The record does not disclose any objection made by the defendant. There being no fundamental or prejudicial errors in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CHAPPELL and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having possession of choc beer, containing more than one-half of 1 per cent, alcohol measured by volume, and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent then and there on the part of the defendant to- sell, barter, give away, or otherwise furnish the same to others unlawfully, and in violation of the prohibitory law, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be imprisoned in the county jail for two months. Prom which judgment the defendant appeals.

The testimony shows that the officers went to the defendant’s home searching for a pair of shoes that was claimed to have been stolen; the defendant told him all he had was some choc beer in the basement; they were in the defendant’s home under a search warrant for shoes and not for intoxicating liquor.

No objection was made to the testimony offered by the state. In order that it may be considered by this court, *221 it was necessary for the defendant to object to the same and ask that it be excluded from the jury. The record does not disclose any objection made by the defendant. There being no fundamental or prejudicial errors in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CHAPPELL and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 135, 297 P. 307, 50 Okla. Crim. 220, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.