Wheeler v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wheeler v. State

1913 OK CR 371, 136 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 665, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 374

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 13, 1913

DocketNo. A-1831.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 371 (Wheeler 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

Wheeler v. State, 1913 OK CR 371, 136 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 665, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 374 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an information which charged the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to E. P. Gilliam. On the 17th day of July, 1912, he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. On this appeal it is contended that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. The complaining witness swore positively to the purchase. Defendant denied the sale and offered proof of an alibi. The cases are very rare in which this court has reversed judgments upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and’ it is only in a case where the evidence is plainly insufficient to warrant the finding of the jury that the verdict will be disturbed. It is our opinion that the verdict in this case is sufficiently sustained by the evidence. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an information which charged the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to E. P. Gilliam. On the 17th day of July, 1912, he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. On this appeal it is contended that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. The complaining witness swore positively to the purchase. Defendant denied the sale and offered proof of an alibi. The cases are very rare in which this court has reversed judgments upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and’ it is only in a case where the evidence is plainly insufficient to warrant the finding of the jury that the verdict will be disturbed. It is our opinion that the verdict in this case is sufficiently sustained by the evidence. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 371, 136 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 665, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.