Williamson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Williamson v. State

1920 OK CR 93, 188 P. 693, 17 Okla. Crim. 715, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 66

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 6, 1920

DocketNo. A-3373.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 93 (Williamson 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

Williamson v. State, 1920 OK CR 93, 188 P. 693, 17 Okla. Crim. 715, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 66 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the superior court of Okmulgee county, wherein the defendants were each, upon a joint trial, convicted of the crime of keeping a house of ill fame, and each sentenced to pay a fine of $250. Prom the judgments of conviction against them, the defendants have appealed to this court, and assign several alleged errors as grounds for reversal. The court has given careful consideration to each of the grounds relied upon for reversal of this judgment, and while it is apparent that the trial court erred in admitting certain irrelevant evidence, we are convinced that the competent evidence introduced on behalf, of the state is amply sufficient to sustain the judgments of conviction, and that the admission of the incompetent evidence was not of such a prejudicial nature as should result in a reversal of the judgments. While other alleged errors are relied upon, they are either technical and without substantial merit, or else are such as have heretofore been decided adversely to the contentions of defendant’s counsel. It is the opinion of the court that the judgment of conviction against each defendant should he affirmed, and it is so ordered. . .

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the superior court of Okmulgee county, wherein the defendants were each, upon a joint trial, convicted of the crime of keeping a house of ill fame, and each sentenced to pay a fine of $250. Prom the judgments of conviction against them, the defendants have appealed to this court, and assign several alleged errors as grounds for reversal. The court has given careful consideration to each of the grounds relied upon for reversal of this judgment, and while it is apparent that the trial court erred in admitting certain irrelevant evidence, we are convinced that the competent evidence introduced on behalf, of the state is amply sufficient to sustain the judgments of conviction, and that the admission of the incompetent evidence was not of such a prejudicial nature as should result in a reversal of the judgments. While other alleged errors are relied upon, they are either technical and without substantial merit, or else are such as have heretofore been decided adversely to the contentions of defendant’s counsel. It is the opinion of the court that the judgment of conviction against each defendant should he affirmed, and it is so ordered. . .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 93, 188 P. 693, 17 Okla. Crim. 715, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.