Tucker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Tucker v. State

1912 OK CR 54, 119 P. 1134, 6 Okla. Crim. 714, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 306

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1912

DocketNo. A-990.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1912 OK CR 54 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. State, 1912 OK CR 54, 119 P. 1134, 6 Okla. Crim. 714, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 306 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on the 6th day of September, 1910, on a charge of violating the prohibitory law, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and thirty days in the county jail. The proof in this ease clearly establishes possession, but there is an entire lack of proof on the question of intent. This court has held in a number of eases that possession alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial court, over the objection of pdaintiff in. error, permitted the state to prove by hearsay that the plaintiff in error paid the special tax to the government. Every line of proof in the record on this point is incompetent and should not have been admitted. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial in accordance with law.

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 Oklahoma county on the 6th day of September, 1910, on a charge of violating the prohibitory law, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and thirty days in the county jail. The proof in this ease clearly establishes possession, but there is an entire lack of proof on the question of intent. This court has held in a number of eases that possession alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial court, over the objection of pdaintiff in. error, permitted the state to prove by hearsay that the plaintiff in error paid the special tax to the government. Every line of proof in the record on this point is incompetent and should not have been admitted. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial in accordance with law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 54, 119 P. 1134, 6 Okla. Crim. 714, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack