TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Michael v. State

NEWELL MICHAEL Et Al. v. STATE

Michael v. State, 1929 OK CR 70, 274 P. 900
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 2, 1929
Docket
No. A-6451.
Judges
Edwards, Davenport, Chappell
Citations
274 P. 9001929 OK CR 7042 Okla. Crim. 1241929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 329

Opinion of the Court — Edwards

*125 EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Garfield county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $50. and to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail.

The record discloses that, on the date charged, certain officers with a search warrant went to premises in charge of defendants and found Lloyd Michael, Robert Hughes, and Harold Hughes at a small building thereon. Soon Newell Michael came by and was called in by one of the officers. In this building there was indication that a still had been in operation, and in the attic the officers found a condenser coil and pressure tank. There was a smell of whisky mash about the place and evidence that corn mash had been poured out of the window and some had been spilled on the floor. Not far away there was found concealed 19 gallons of whisky, with tracks leading from the granary to it. The evidence seems conclusive that defendants had the possession of 'the whisky found for the purpose of sale.

Objection is made that the judge instead of the clerk drew the names of the jurors from the box, in violation of section 2646, Comp. Stat. 1921. No contention is made that the names of the jurors were not fairly drawn but the mere technical objection that they were drawn by the judge. No authorities in support are cited. See Young v. State, 41 Okla. Cr. 226 , 271 P. 426 . The statute is not mandatory, but directory, and, unless it appears that a failure to conform strictly to the statute was prejudicial, the case should not be reversed on the mere technical objection. No prejudicial error is made to appear.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 11930: 31931: 11941: 11968: 11976: 11982: 119292026peak 1930 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sanders v. State1930 OK CR 87, 287 P. 842
  2. Kurn v. Campbell1941 OK 81, 112 P.2d 386
  3. Roddy v. State1930 OK CR 167, 287 P. 765
  4. Hines v. State1976 OK CR 325, 557 P.2d 917
  5. Rhodes v. State1929 OK CR 145, 276 P. 698
  6. Burkett v. State1930 OK CR 362, 291 P. 139

Most recent

  1. Helfrich v. State1982 OK CR 19, 640 P.2d 1367
  2. Hines v. State1976 OK CR 325, 557 P.2d 917
  3. Bennett v. State1968 OK CR 219, 448 P.2d 253
  4. Kurn v. Campbell1941 OK 81, 112 P.2d 386
  5. Stewart v. State1931 OK CR 484, 5 P.2d 174
  6. Burkett v. State1930 OK CR 362, 291 P. 139

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Young v. State, 1928 OK CR 307, 271 P. 426 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list