Wagner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wagner v. State

1920 OK CR 33, 187 P. 252, 17 Okla. Crim. 705, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 38

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 16, 1920

DocketNo. A-3401.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 33 (Wagner 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

Wagner v. State, 1920 OK CR 33, 187 P. 252, 17 Okla. Crim. 705, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 38 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Billy Wagner, and Billy Miles, were jointly charged with the possession of one pint of whisky with intent to sell same. Before tlie trial the case was dismissed as to Billy Miles. Upon liis trial paintiff in error was convicted and his punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and a fine of $50. He lias appealed from the judgment rendered on tlie verdict hut there has been no appearance in his behalf on his appeal.

rTlie evidence shows that two peace officers in the city of Tulsa phoned to the defendants an order for a pint of whisky, with direc- *706 tiou to bring it to the “Grand.” In 'response to the order, plaintiff in error appeared, and they arrested him and1 found a i>int of whisky on his person. On those undisputed facts it will suffice to say that the verdict was as favorable to the defendant as the law and the evidence warranted. Discovering no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Billy Wagner, and Billy Miles, were jointly charged with the possession of one pint of whisky with intent to sell same. Before tlie trial the case was dismissed as to Billy Miles. Upon liis trial paintiff in error was convicted and his punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and a fine of $50. He lias appealed from the judgment rendered on tlie verdict hut there has been no appearance in his behalf on his appeal.

rTlie evidence shows that two peace officers in the city of Tulsa phoned to the defendants an order for a pint of whisky, with direc- *706 tiou to bring it to the “Grand.” In 'response to the order, plaintiff in error appeared, and they arrested him and1 found a i>int of whisky on his person. On those undisputed facts it will suffice to say that the verdict was as favorable to the defendant as the law and the evidence warranted. Discovering no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 33, 187 P. 252, 17 Okla. Crim. 705, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.