White v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

White v. State

1915 OK CR 92, 146 P. 1199, 11 Okla. Crim. 699, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 92

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 6, 1915

DocketNo. A-2209.

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK CR 92 (White 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

White v. State, 1915 OK CR 92, 146 P. 1199, 11 Okla. Crim. 699, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, George White, was convicted in the superior court of Muskogee county on a charge that he did have in his possession unlawfully intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. On the 16th day of December, 1913, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail 'for sixty days and to pay a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. The main question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdiet. After a careful examinatoin of the record we are not prepared to say that) there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict; though the record does not make a strong case yet the trial judge having refused to grant a new trial upon that ground, we would not feel justified in reversing his determination upon that point. The judgment of the superior court of Muskogee county herein is, therefore, affirmed.

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

PEE CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, George White, was convicted in the superior court of Muskogee county on a charge that he did have in his possession unlawfully intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. On the 16th day of December, 1913, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail 'for sixty days and to pay a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. The main question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdiet. After a careful examinatoin of the record we are not prepared to say that) there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict; though the record does not make a strong case yet the trial judge having refused to grant a new trial upon that ground, we would not feel justified in reversing his determination upon that point. The judgment of the superior court of Muskogee county herein is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK CR 92, 146 P. 1199, 11 Okla. Crim. 699, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-oklacrimapp-1915.