Young v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Young v. State

1920 OK CR 119, 190 P. 270, 17 Okla. Crim. 511, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 110

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 8, 1920

DocketNo. A-3431.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 119 (Young 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

Young v. State, 1920 OK CR 119, 190 P. 270, 17 Okla. Crim. 511, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 110 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

*512 DOYLE, P. J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court of Wasliita county rendered upon a verdict finding plaintiff in error, Walter Young, guilty of grand .larceny as charged in the information and fixing his punishment at confinement in the state reformatory at Granite for a period of 18 months. The petition in error with case-made was filed in this court on August 12, 1918, and no brief has been filed and no appearance made on behalf of plaintiff in error in this court. The cause was submitted on the record.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The information charges the larceny of about- 600 pounds of cotton of the value of $50, the personal property of J M. Hardesty. After a careful examination of the record and the evidence we reach the conclusion that the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction, and that no such error was committed, if any at all, as would justify a reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

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

*512 DOYLE, P. J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court of Wasliita county rendered upon a verdict finding plaintiff in error, Walter Young, guilty of grand .larceny as charged in the information and fixing his punishment at confinement in the state reformatory at Granite for a period of 18 months. The petition in error with case-made was filed in this court on August 12, 1918, and no brief has been filed and no appearance made on behalf of plaintiff in error in this court. The cause was submitted on the record.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The information charges the larceny of about- 600 pounds of cotton of the value of $50, the personal property of J M. Hardesty. After a careful examination of the record and the evidence we reach the conclusion that the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction, and that no such error was committed, if any at all, as would justify a reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 119, 190 P. 270, 17 Okla. Crim. 511, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.