Thompson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Thompson v. State

1912 OK CR 66, 119 P. 1133, 6 Okla. Crim. 720, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 296

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 17, 1912

DocketNo. A-1167.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 66 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 1912 OK CR 66, 119 P. 1133, 6 Okla. Crim. 720, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 296 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county at the January, 1911, term, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail. Following the doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of Barr v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009; Harper v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009, and McDaniel v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1010, we think the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to cause the county attorney to file a proper information, and try the case anew. It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county at the January, 1911, term, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail. Following the doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of Barr v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009; Harper v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009, and McDaniel v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1010, we think the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to cause the county attorney to file a proper information, and try the case anew. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 66, 119 P. 1133, 6 Okla. Crim. 720, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.