Weatherford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Weatherford v. State

1925 OK CR 163, 234 P. 779, 30 Okla. Crim. 86, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 163

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 28, 1925

DocketNo. A-4721.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1925 OK CR 163 (Weatherford 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

Weatherford v. State, 1925 OK CR 163, 234 P. 779, 30 Okla. Crim. 86, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 163 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BÉSSEY, P. J.

Arthur Weatherford, plaintiff in *87 error, here designated the defendant, was convicted of the larceny of a calf. The jury fixed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Without reciting the details, the evidence is clear and convincing that the theft was committed by the defendant as charged. His only claim of justification is that his accomplice in crime turned informer and assisted in trapping him, which of course is no defense at all.

Defendant claims that the district court was without jurisdiction because the examining magistrate had not properly certified and filed his findings with the district court. This contention is also without merit. The record shows that a preliminary hearing had been held before a magistrate, in which the defendant was held to answer the charge of larceny of live stock. The jurisdiction of the district court rests upon the findings of a magistrate in a preliminary hearing, but irregularities of a mere clerical nature committed by the magistrate, or irregularities in filing such findings may be cured, as was done in this case. Williams v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 373, 118 P. 1006; Ponosky v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 116, 126 P. 451; Muldrow v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 549, 185 P. 332.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

BÉSSEY, P. J.

Arthur Weatherford, plaintiff in *87 error, here designated the defendant, was convicted of the larceny of a calf. The jury fixed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Without reciting the details, the evidence is clear and convincing that the theft was committed by the defendant as charged. His only claim of justification is that his accomplice in crime turned informer and assisted in trapping him, which of course is no defense at all.

Defendant claims that the district court was without jurisdiction because the examining magistrate had not properly certified and filed his findings with the district court. This contention is also without merit. The record shows that a preliminary hearing had been held before a magistrate, in which the defendant was held to answer the charge of larceny of live stock. The jurisdiction of the district court rests upon the findings of a magistrate in a preliminary hearing, but irregularities of a mere clerical nature committed by the magistrate, or irregularities in filing such findings may be cured, as was done in this case. Williams v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 373, 118 P. 1006; Ponosky v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 116, 126 P. 451; Muldrow v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 549, 185 P. 332.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 163, 234 P. 779, 30 Okla. Crim. 86, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weatherford-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack