TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Neff v. State

Mrs. Walter Neff v. State.

Neff v. State, 1925 OK CR 2, 231 P. 898
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 6, 1925
Docket
No. A-4830.
Judges
Bessey, Matson, Doyle
Citations
231 P. 8981925 OK CR 229 Okla. Crim. 21925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 3

Opinion of the Court — Bessey

BESSEY, J.

On December 6, 1924, an order was made and entered by this court, dismissing this cause for want of service of notice of appeal or service or waiver of summons. A subsequent inspection of the files and dockets disclosed that service of summons was waived by the Attorney General, and that a record thereof was in *3 advertently omitted. The order of dismissal heretofore made herein is therefore set aside, and the cause is submitted and decided on the merits.

The record discloses that on June 3, 1923, the premises of Walter Neff, husband of plaintiff in error, were searched, and upon the evidence there obtained he was arrested, and subsequently convicted of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The day following the arrest and incarceration of Walter Neff, and in his absence, the premises were again searched. The officers said that as they approached the place they saw Mrs. Neff go hurriedly into the kitchen; that they followed her, and detected the odor-of whisky in a sink, and found a bucket there containing about a spoonful of corn whisky; that there was a pipe leading from this sink to the rear of the lot, and that they detected the odor of whisky at the end of this pipe.

Notwithstanding the recent development in the emancipation of women, a wife is still presumed to be under duress of her husband, where a crime is committed by the husband in her presence. In this case the husband had just been carried away and incarcerated in jail. The whisky the officers smelled may have belonged to him, and the wife may have had no intention of disposing of the liquor. The evidence as to Mrs. Neff is insufficient to support the verdict against her.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

MATSON, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11931: 11932: 11937: 11939: 11941: 11953: 11954: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sentell v. State1937 OK CR 70, 67 P.2d 466
  2. Peter Joseph O'Donnell Et Ux. v. State1941 OK CR 122, 117 P.2d 139
  3. Paris v. State1939 OK CR 55, 90 P.2d 1078
  4. Zammer v. State1931 OK CR 279, 300 P. 325
  5. Ferguson v. State1925 OK CR 96, 233 P. 497
  6. Trapp v. State1954 OK CR 43, 268 P.2d 913

Most recent

  1. Trapp v. State1954 OK CR 43, 268 P.2d 913
  2. Johnson v. State1953 OK CR 127, 261 P.2d 480
  3. Peter Joseph O'Donnell Et Ux. v. State1941 OK CR 122, 117 P.2d 139
  4. Paris v. State1939 OK CR 55, 90 P.2d 1078
  5. Sentell v. State1937 OK CR 70, 67 P.2d 466
  6. Davis v. State1932 OK CR 34, 7 P.2d 911

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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