|
|
|
Court Records
|
|
|
Hopkins v State
1915 OK CR 89
146 P. 1197
11 Okl.Cr. 697
Case Number: No. A-2146
Decided: 03/04/1915
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Cite as: 1915 OK CR 89, 11 Okl.Cr. 697, 146 P. 1197
Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; H.N. Whalin, Judge.
George Hopkins, convicted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals. Affirmed.
Fain & Young, and Stevens & Myers, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S.I. McElhoes, for the State.
PER CURIAM. This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had on an information which charged that the defendant did have in his possession nineteen pints of whisky and forty-four quarts of beer, with the intent to sell the same. On the 13th day of September, 1913, the court sentenced the defendant to be confined in the county jail for ninety days and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. The evidence in the case was substantially as follows:
W.E. Nix, sheriff, testified that on the 24th day of July, 1913, he found at the defendant's place of business, a livery barn in Lawton, forty-four quarts of beer and nineteen pints of whisky; that several bottles of the beer was in an ice box; that the defendant was present when he seized the liquors; that he was acquainted with the reputation of the defendant's place as being a place where intoxicating liquors were kept and sold and that it was bad.
W.P. Pierce, deputy sheriff, testified that he was with the sheriff when the liquor was seized, and the defendant Hopkins said, "That was his last," and that he knew the reputation of the place as to being a place where intoxicating liquors were kept and it was bad.
A certified copy of a retail liquor dealer's license from the office of the Internal Revenue Collector of the district of Oklahoma was introduced, showing that the same was issued to George J. Hopkins, retail liquor dealer, Lawton, Okla., Lot 24, Block 23, date of payment, July 21st, 1913, amount of tax paid, $25.00.Page 698
This was all the evidence in the case. The defense offered no testimony. The petition in error contains seventeen assignments. It is evident that justice has been done and the judgment ought not be set aside except for some manifest error in the proceedings prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any such error. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Tipton v State
1930 OK CR 405
292 P. 880
49 Okl.Cr. 109
Decided: 09/20/1930
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Cite as: 1930 OK CR 405, 49 Okl.Cr. 109, 292 P. 880
(Syllabus.)
Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence Held to Sustain Conviction of but Two of Three Defendants. Record examined and evidence therein held sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence of Tom Tipton and Everett Beeler; and insufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence of Reubin Pointer.
Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; John Manning, Judge.
Tom Tipton, Reubin Pointer, and Everett Beeler were convicted of possessing a still with intent to violate the state prohibition laws, and they appeal. Affirmed as to defendants Tipton and Beeler, and reversed as to defendant Pointer.
S.R. Harper and Lewis Hunter, for plaintiffs in error.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., for the State.
DAVENPORT, J. The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, were tried and convicted of the possession of one still, with intent to use the same to violate the prohibition laws of the state, and the defendant Tom Tipton was sentenced to serve 180 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $250; the defendant Reubin Pointer was sentenced to serve 120 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $150; the defendant Everett Beeler was sentenced to serve 120 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $120. Motion for new trial was filed, considered, overruled, and the defendants have appealed by case-made with petition in error attached to this court.
The testimony of the state is, in substance, as follows: Jess Ansel stated he was a deputy sheriff, on SeptemberPage 110
23, 1928, and knew the defendants; accompanied by W.E. Nix he went to the Emmit Gray farm in Comanche county; they were going down a creek on the farm and saw the defendants Tipton and Beeler standing close to the still; they had a soldering iron — "We watched them about five minutes and went down to where the still was; when we got down to the still Mr. Pointer stood some distance south of the still; the defendant Tipton said the still belonged to him; the defendant Pointer came back to the still and helped us tear it down; Pointer said he had a car somewhere, but it was not around there, I never saw it. It was about a 350-gallon still. We found a truck about 150 yards from the still; Tipton said it belonged to himself and Pat Brewers."
On cross-examination witness stated the defendants Beeler and Pointer did not try to run or get away; defendant Beeler did not make any claim to the still.
W.E. Nix testified for the state, in substance, that when they first came up to the still on the Emmitt Gray place they saw two men, later he learned the defendants were Tipton and Beeler; shortly after they went up to the still Mr. Ansel yelled at Mr. Pointer, and the defendant Pointer said he had nothing to do with it, that he had come to get a wrench to fix his car; Tipton said it was his still.
The witness further stated when he first saw Pointer he was about 75 yards from the still, and that Tipton said the still belonged to him.
At the close of the state's testimony the defendants Reubin Pointer and Everett Beeler demurred to the evidence for the reason that the state failed to sustain the allegations in the information in this case, and for the further reason that the evidence shows that the defendantsPage 111
had nothing to do with the still, according to the officers who testify, stating that Tipton said they had nothing to do with the still. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant duly excepted.
The defendants have assigned four errors alleged to have been committed in the trial of this case. The fourth assignment being: "That the court erred in overruling the defendants' motion for a new trial." This assignment covers all the other alleged errors.
An examination of the record clearly shows that the defendants Tom Tipton and Everett Beeler were at the still, working or preparing to work — they had a soldering iron — and no explanation is made why the defendant Beeler was at the still. It is true the defendant Tipton says the still belonged to him, but Beeler was there with the defendant Tipton. No testimony was offered by the defendant Beeler to show how he happened to be present with the defendant Tipton at the still when the officers came upon them. The only testimony which tends to exonerate the defendant Beeler is the statement of Tipton that the still belonged to him. The testimony of the witness as to the defendant Reubin Pointer shows that Pointer stated he had been there to get a wrench to fix his car; considered in connection with the statement of Tipton that the still belonged to him, and the facts that Pointer was seen by the officers about 75 yards from the still with the wrench in his hand, the testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction against the defendant Reubin Pointer.
The court did not err in overruling the motion of the defendants Tom Tipton and Everett Beeler for a new trial. The motion for a new trial as to Reubin Pointer should have been sustained.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of Tom Tipton and Everett Beeler, and insufficient to sustain the conviction of Reubin Pointer. The judgment as to the defendants Tom Tipton and Everett Beeler is affirmed, and reversed as to Reubin Pointer.
EDWARDS, P.J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.
