Turk v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Turk v. United States

38 F.2d 630, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2370

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1930

DocketNo. 59

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 F.2d 630 (Turk v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Turk v. United States, 38 F.2d 630, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2370 (10th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted on two counts charging the sale of intoxicating liquor, and on a third count charging possession. The sentences were concurrent.

The first count charged a sale to a named purchaser “in Oklahoma County, in the Western District of the State of Oklahoma”; the second count was the same, except as to the date.

The only error relied upon is that the information was fatally defective in not alleging the place of the commission of the crime more specifically. The decisions of the Eighth Circuit in Turk v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 129, and Partson v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 127, are relied upon.

This precise question had the consideration of this court in Coyle v. Ignited States, 34 F.(2d) 399. The facts are identical. This court considered the cited cases and the earlier cases of Lynch v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 947; Myers v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 977; United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 S. Ct, 571, 31 L. Ed. 516; Armour Packing Co. v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 153 F. 1, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400; Floren v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 186 F. 961; Miller v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 133 F. 337; Fontana v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 262 F. 283; Goldberg v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 277 F. 211; Weisman v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 696; and Jarl v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 891. It also considered the later cases of Swafford v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 581, and Davis v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 814. After such consideration, this court held that, where the purchaser was named, the offense was sufficiently identified. We adhere to that decision.

Count three stands in different stead, in that it charges possession “in Oklahoma County, in the Western District of Oklahoma,” without further identification. Since the sentence on the third count is concurrent with the sentences on the first and second counts, it is unnecessary to consider the error assigned.

The judgment is affirmed and the mandate will issue forthwith.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted on two counts charging the sale of intoxicating liquor, and on a third count charging possession. The sentences were concurrent.

The first count charged a sale to a named purchaser “in Oklahoma County, in the Western District of the State of Oklahoma”; the second count was the same, except as to the date.

The only error relied upon is that the information was fatally defective in not alleging the place of the commission of the crime more specifically. The decisions of the Eighth Circuit in Turk v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 129, and Partson v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 127, are relied upon.

This precise question had the consideration of this court in Coyle v. Ignited States, 34 F.(2d) 399. The facts are identical. This court considered the cited cases and the earlier cases of Lynch v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 947; Myers v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 977; United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 S. Ct, 571, 31 L. Ed. 516; Armour Packing Co. v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 153 F. 1, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400; Floren v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 186 F. 961; Miller v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 133 F. 337; Fontana v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 262 F. 283; Goldberg v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 277 F. 211; Weisman v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 696; and Jarl v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 891. It also considered the later cases of Swafford v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 581, and Davis v. United States (8 C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 814. After such consideration, this court held that, where the purchaser was named, the offense was sufficiently identified. We adhere to that decision.

Count three stands in different stead, in that it charges possession “in Oklahoma County, in the Western District of Oklahoma,” without further identification. Since the sentence on the third count is concurrent with the sentences on the first and second counts, it is unnecessary to consider the error assigned.

The judgment is affirmed and the mandate will issue forthwith.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F.2d 630, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turk-v-united-states-ca10-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack