Watson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Watson v. State

1928 OK CR 4, 262 P. 700, 38 Okla. Crim. 408, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 350

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 7, 1928

DocketNo. A-6241.

StatusPublished

This text of 1928 OK CR 4 (Watson 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

Watson v. State, 1928 OK CR 4, 262 P. 700, 38 Okla. Crim. 408, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 350 (Okla. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Woods county on a charge of selling whisky, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

The only assignment of error argued is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. The principal evidence on the part of' the stare is that of two persons employed by the sheriff and county commissioners to discover violations of the prohibitory liquor law. They testified that at the time charged they purchased whisky from the defendant. This is denied by defendant, who offers some slight corroboration and some evidence of good character. This presents a question of fact for the jury. They saw and heard the witnesses, *409 and it is for them to say whom they - will believe or disbelieve. There is no complaint of any error in the proceeding. The trial seems to have been orderly and free from error. No reason to disturb the verdict and judgment is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Woods county on a charge of selling whisky, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

The only assignment of error argued is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. The principal evidence on the part of' the stare is that of two persons employed by the sheriff and county commissioners to discover violations of the prohibitory liquor law. They testified that at the time charged they purchased whisky from the defendant. This is denied by defendant, who offers some slight corroboration and some evidence of good character. This presents a question of fact for the jury. They saw and heard the witnesses, *409 and it is for them to say whom they - will believe or disbelieve. There is no complaint of any error in the proceeding. The trial seems to have been orderly and free from error. No reason to disturb the verdict and judgment is apparent.

The case is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK CR 4, 262 P. 700, 38 Okla. Crim. 408, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1928.