Vick v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Vick v. State

1914 OK CR 216, 142 P. 1199, 35 Okla. Crim. 394, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 12, 1914

DocketNo. A-1959.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 216 (Vick 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

Vick v. State, 1914 OK CR 216, 142 P. 1199, 35 Okla. Crim. 394, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 113 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, P. M. Vick, was convicted at the November, 1912, term of the county court of Muskogee county, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $150 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days. From a careful examination of the record we are unable to find error sufficient to justify a reversal of this judgment. Under the proof introduced at the trial we cannot say as a matter of law that the conviction Was contrary to the evidence. The credibility of the witnesses and the reasonableness of their testimony is a question for the jury. It is clear from the proof that the accused did have possession *395 of liquor, and that the place where it was found in his possession was a “joint” or place where intoxicating liquors were sold. The explanation given by the accused, along with the other testimony, went to the jury, and they found against his contention. This was entirely within their province, and their judgment on the question of fact is final. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, P. M. Vick, was convicted at the November, 1912, term of the county court of Muskogee county, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $150 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days. From a careful examination of the record we are unable to find error sufficient to justify a reversal of this judgment. Under the proof introduced at the trial we cannot say as a matter of law that the conviction Was contrary to the evidence. The credibility of the witnesses and the reasonableness of their testimony is a question for the jury. It is clear from the proof that the accused did have possession *395 of liquor, and that the place where it was found in his possession was a “joint” or place where intoxicating liquors were sold. The explanation given by the accused, along with the other testimony, went to the jury, and they found against his contention. This was entirely within their province, and their judgment on the question of fact is final. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 216, 142 P. 1199, 35 Okla. Crim. 394, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vick-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.