Vandeventer v. State

1938 OK CR 60, 79 P.2d 1032, 64 Okla. Crim. 317, 1938 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 27, 1938
DocketNo. A-9283.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1938 OK CR 60 (Vandeventer 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
Vandeventer v. State, 1938 OK CR 60, 79 P.2d 1032, 64 Okla. Crim. 317, 1938 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45 (Okla. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

BAREFOOT, J.

The defendant, Ned Vandeventer, was charged by indictment returned by a grand jury of Tulsa county, with the crime of opening and conducting gambling games; was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 and to serve a term of five years in the penitentiary.

This is a companion case of Roy Staley et al. v. State, 64 Okla. Cr. 302, 79 P. 2d 818, decided by this court on the 20th day of May, 1938. The questions of law presented are identical with the questions presented in that case and it becomes unnecessary to again review them.

The defendant was charged by indictment with opening up and conducting gambling games in violation of Oklahoma Statutes, 1931, section 2193 (Okla. St. Ann., Tit. *319 21, see. 941), on December 2, 1935, at “The Oaks”, situated on Highway No. 64, in Tulsa county, Okla.

The record reveals that defendant operated and managed this place from some time in September, 1935, until December 2, 1935, the date charged in the indictment. That it was conducted as a night club and gambling hall, and gambling was permitted there. That different persons were employed and paid by defendant, just as in the Roy Staley Case. An orchestra was employed, and meals were also served. Gambling tables and other paraphernalia used in a gambling house were set up, and the evidence showed that people resorted there for the purpose of gambling at the different games. That the playing was for “money, checks, credits and other representatives of value”. The defendant was seen there handling the different games, and selling and cashing the checks, and acting as the manager in charge. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendant.

For the reasons stated in the case of Roy Staley et al. v. State, we are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be modified from a fine of $1,000 and five years in the penitentiary, to a fine of $1,000 and two years in the penitentiary, and with this modification the judgment of the district court of Tulsa county is affirmed.

DOYLE, J., concurs. DAVENPORT, P. J., absent and not participating.

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

Related

People v. Miller
149 Misc. 2d 554 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1938 OK CR 60, 79 P.2d 1032, 64 Okla. Crim. 317, 1938 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandeventer-v-state-oklacrimapp-1938.