Whittington v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Whittington v. State

1931 OK CR 338, 1 P.2d 840, 51 Okla. Crim. 333, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 338

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 22, 1931

DocketNo. A-7956.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1931 OK CR 338 (Whittington 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

Whittington v. State, 1931 OK CR 338, 1 P.2d 840, 51 Okla. Crim. 333, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 338 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Washita county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve 60 days in the county jail.

Officers with a search warrant searched the residence of defendant at the town of Sentinel and found one gallon of wine and a considerable quantity of home-brew and one quart of corn whisky; and a half gallon of whisky was found in the bathroom, but as this room was not covered by the search warrant the court struck the consideration of that from the jury. Complaint is made that the evidence is insufficient. This contention is not tenable. There is sufficient evidence to- sustain the judgment.

It is also argued that a remark of the trial judge was prejudicial. In the course of the argument, counsel for the state argued that there were five quarts of intoxicating liquor. Defendant’s counsel challenged the correctness of this statement, and the court overruled the objection stating the ground of his objection and using the words, “It is just up to the jury to believe it.” An exception was taken to the ruling of the court, but no- ex *335 ception was taken to the remarks of the court and no error predicated on the remark of the court is assigned in the motion for a new trial. The error is waived.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and CHAPPELL, 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 Washita county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve 60 days in the county jail.

Officers with a search warrant searched the residence of defendant at the town of Sentinel and found one gallon of wine and a considerable quantity of home-brew and one quart of corn whisky; and a half gallon of whisky was found in the bathroom, but as this room was not covered by the search warrant the court struck the consideration of that from the jury. Complaint is made that the evidence is insufficient. This contention is not tenable. There is sufficient evidence to- sustain the judgment.

It is also argued that a remark of the trial judge was prejudicial. In the course of the argument, counsel for the state argued that there were five quarts of intoxicating liquor. Defendant’s counsel challenged the correctness of this statement, and the court overruled the objection stating the ground of his objection and using the words, “It is just up to the jury to believe it.” An exception was taken to the ruling of the court, but no- ex *335 ception was taken to the remarks of the court and no error predicated on the remark of the court is assigned in the motion for a new trial. The error is waived.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 338, 1 P.2d 840, 51 Okla. Crim. 333, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittington-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack