Walters v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Walters v. State

1916 OK CR 125, 159 P. 921, 12 Okla. Crim. 626, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 132

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 23, 1916

DocketNo. A-2630.

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK CR 125 (Walters 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

Walters v. State, 1916 OK CR 125, 159 P. 921, 12 Okla. Crim. 626, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 132 (Okla. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff in error, Steve Walters, was convicted in the superior court of Pottawatomie county on a charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was by the judgment of the court, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of Fifty Dollars and all costs.

Prom the judgment he appealed by filing in this court on .January 11, 1916, a petition in error with ease-made.

Prom our examination of the record we find that the charge of the court fairly presented the law of the case, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. No prejudicial error being apparent, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff in error, Steve Walters, was convicted in the superior court of Pottawatomie county on a charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was by the judgment of the court, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of Fifty Dollars and all costs.

Prom the judgment he appealed by filing in this court on .January 11, 1916, a petition in error with ease-made.

Prom our examination of the record we find that the charge of the court fairly presented the law of the case, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. No prejudicial error being apparent, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK CR 125, 159 P. 921, 12 Okla. Crim. 626, 1916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-state-oklacrimapp-1916.