Torrence v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Torrence v. State

1929 OK CR 130, 276 P. 498, 42 Okla. Crim. 353, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 390

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 13, 1929

DocketNo. A-6701.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 130 (Torrence 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

Torrence v. State, 1929 OK CR 130, 276 P. 498, 42 Okla. Crim. 353, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 390 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted on a charge of having the possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $225 and imprisonment in the county jail for a term of 40 days.

The record discloses that at the time charged certain officers, having information that intoxicating liquor was to be delivered, were following the car of one Bob Wing-field. He drove the car to a place near where defendant was seated in a car and stopped, and was engaged in a conversation with him when the officers came up. A five-gallon jug of whisky was found about four steps from defendant’s car. Prior to that time Wingfield was seen talking to defendant in the town of Cushing, after which defendant was seen to drive away, and Wingfield later drove to where defendant was in his car as stated. These and other circumstances not detailed were sufficient to lead the jury to reasonably and logically find defendant guilty. No fundamental or jurisdictional error is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted on a charge of having the possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $225 and imprisonment in the county jail for a term of 40 days.

The record discloses that at the time charged certain officers, having information that intoxicating liquor was to be delivered, were following the car of one Bob Wing-field. He drove the car to a place near where defendant was seated in a car and stopped, and was engaged in a conversation with him when the officers came up. A five-gallon jug of whisky was found about four steps from defendant’s car. Prior to that time Wingfield was seen talking to defendant in the town of Cushing, after which defendant was seen to drive away, and Wingfield later drove to where defendant was in his car as stated. These and other circumstances not detailed were sufficient to lead the jury to reasonably and logically find defendant guilty. No fundamental or jurisdictional error is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 130, 276 P. 498, 42 Okla. Crim. 353, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrence-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.