TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kizziar v. State

General Kizziar v. State.

Kizziar v. State, 1935 OK CR 78, 47 P.2d 198
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 28, 1935
Docket
No. A-8850.
Judges
Doyle, Davenport, Edwards
Citations
47 P.2d 1981935 OK CR 7857 Okla. Crim. 2241935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45

Opinion of the Court — Doyle

*225 DOYLE, J.

On information charging that in Marshall county September 14, 1934, General Kizziar, the defendant, did then and there have possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate the prohibitory law, he was tried and convicted, and, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, was on December 5, 1934, sentenced to confinement in the county jail for 60 days and to pay a fine of $100 and all costs.

From the judgment, he ‘appeals and assigns as error that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

The state relied for this conviction on the testimony of Harmon Spicer and Joe Everett, deputy sheriffs. Their testimony shows that they were following the defendant on the highway and were delayed for a few minutes on a high center. Shortly after they came upon the defendant as he was coming out of a ditch by the side of the road; that he then lowered the turtlebaclc of his car, jumped in, and drove away. The officers stopped where the defendant got out of his car and there in the ditch found about twenty gallons of whisky in one keg and several fruit jars. They also found fresh tracks from the point where defendant’s car stopped to where they found the whisky.

There was no testimony on the part of the defense.

Under the statute, questions of fact are to be decided by the jury (section 3062, ,St. 1931), and, where competent evidence has been introduced tending to prove the material allegations of the information, its weight and sufficiency to sustain the conviction is for the jury.

The judgment and sentence appealed from is therefore affirmed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1936: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dyer v. State1936 OK CR 8, 53 P.2d 700

Most recent

  1. Dyer v. State1936 OK CR 8, 53 P.2d 700

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