Williams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Williams v. State

1933 OK CR 126, 27 P.2d 363, 55 Okla. Crim. 181, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 56

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 24, 1933

DocketNo. A-8603.

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK CR 126 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 1933 OK CR 126, 27 P.2d 363, 55 Okla. Crim. 181, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 56 (Okla. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county of having the illegal possession of whisky, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to serve a term of 90 days in the county jail.

The contention is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment and that the punishment assessed is excessive. Without any lengthy recital, the evidence is that certain officers, with a search warrant, found a quantity of whisky concealed on a vacant lot immediately across the street from the place of residence of defendant. There was ample evidence showing defendant’s connection *182 with the vacant lot, that taxicabs and other cars would go to the premises, and that defendant would cross the street and procure a jar and bring it to the occupants of the car. It is admitted by the defendant that he had heretofore been convicted in the federal court of having possession of a still. Under the entire testimony we are satisfied of defendant’s guilt.

The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county of having the illegal possession of whisky, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to serve a term of 90 days in the county jail.

The contention is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment and that the punishment assessed is excessive. Without any lengthy recital, the evidence is that certain officers, with a search warrant, found a quantity of whisky concealed on a vacant lot immediately across the street from the place of residence of defendant. There was ample evidence showing defendant’s connection *182 with the vacant lot, that taxicabs and other cars would go to the premises, and that defendant would cross the street and procure a jar and bring it to the occupants of the car. It is admitted by the defendant that he had heretofore been convicted in the federal court of having possession of a still. Under the entire testimony we are satisfied of defendant’s guilt.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK CR 126, 27 P.2d 363, 55 Okla. Crim. 181, 1933 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-oklacrimapp-1933.