Caveness v. State

S.B. Caveness v. State.

Caveness v. State, 1910 OK CR 99, 109 P. 125

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided: May 21, 1910
Docket: No. 171.
Judges: Bichabdson, Furman, Doyle
Citations: 109 P. 1251910 OK CR 993 Okla. Crim. 7291910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 232
Disposition: Beversed and remanded.

Cited by 8

Syllabus

1. JUDGES — Prejudice—Disqualification. Under the law as it existed prior to the passage of the Act approved March 22, 1909. (art. 6, chap. 2G of Snyder’s Comp. Laws of Okla.) it was error to refuse a change of judge, where the defendant, ¡before the case was called’ for trial, filed an affidavit in due form stating that the presiding judge was' prejudiced against him, and that by reason thereof he could not have a fair and impartial trial .before said judge. 2. CRIMINAL LAW — Sale of Liquors — Entrapment. The state is not precluded from prosecuting a defendant for selling liquor because the purchase was made by an officer, for the purpose of instituting a prosecution thereon. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Summary

Appeal from Pottawatomie County Court; E. D. Reasor, Judge. S. B. Caveness was convicted of selling whisky, and he appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bichabdson

BICHABDSON, Judge.

Before this cause was called for trial below plaintiff in error made and filed an affidavit in due form stating that the presiding judge was prejudiced against him, and that by reason thereof a fair and impartial trial could not' be had before said judge; and he prayed a change of judge.' The application was overruled, and an exception was taken. The trial was had before the passage of the Act approved March 22, 1909, relating to the disqualiification of judges (art. 6, chap. 26 of Snyder’s Comp. Laws of Okla.), and under the uniform holding of this court construing the law as it existed prior to the passage of said act, the court committed reversible error in refusing a change of judge.

The sale in this case, according to the state’s evidence, was *730 made to a deputy sheriff, who purchased the whisky as evidence upon which to base a prosecution. Plaintiff in error contends that in such case, the sale being solicited by an officer and agent of the state, a prosecution therefor cannot be maintained. This is not true.

De Graff v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 519, 103 Pac. 538 .

For the error indicated the cause is reversed and remanded with- directions to set aside the judgment and grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge,_ concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts8

Relies on it most ⓘ

Moss v. State1910 OK CR 189, 111 P. 950
Stack v. State1910 OK CR 114, 109 P. 126
DARITY v. State2009 OK CR 27, 220 P.3d 731
Medlock v. State1939 OK CR 29, 89 P.2d 377
Stevens v. State1931 OK CR 360, 2 P.2d 282
Tipton v. State1945 OK CR 27, 156 P.2d 825

Most recent

DARITY v. State2009 OK CR 27, 220 P.3d 731
Carr v. State1952 OK CR 112, 248 P.2d 251
Tipton v. State1945 OK CR 27, 156 P.2d 825
Medlock v. State1939 OK CR 29, 89 P.2d 377
McBrain v. State1937 OK CR 25, 65 P.2d 202
Stevens v. State1931 OK CR 360, 2 P.2d 282

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	De Graff v. State, 1909 OK CR 82, 103 P. 538	95

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list