TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sims v. State

T. E. Sims v. State.

Sims v. State, 1913 OK CR 142, 132 P. 508
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 7, 1913
Docket
No. A-1600.
Judges
Furman, Armstrong, Doyle
Citations
132 P. 5081913 OK CR 1429 Okla. Crim. 5611913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 168
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
APPEAL — Former Jeopardy. Thd* plea of former jeopardy cannot be considered by the appellate court, unless it is presented in the lower court in the'manner prescribed by statute. ('Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge. T. E. Sims was convicted o-f a sale of intoxicating liquor, and 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 — Furman

FURMAN, J.

The evidence of tbe guilt of appellant is clear and uncontradicted. In fact, no defense was made in the lower court. When the state was through with its evidence the defendant made the following motion:

“Comes now the defendant and moves • the ‘ court to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty in this case, for the reason that the .testimony introduced in the case is the same testimony that was introduced by the same witnesses in the trial of T. E. Sims on the 15th day of May, 1911, in which the defendant was charged with selling whisky to J.

S. Douglas, and the same testimony has been introduced in each case.”

This motion was by the trial court overruled, to which the defendant excepted. • ;

The plea of former jeopardy cannot be presented in this manner. Section 5802, Rev. Laws 1910, in mandatory terms directs how this plea shall be presented to the trial court. As the statute was not complied with, ' there was no issue ' *562 on this question before tbe trial court.. Our jurisdiction is purely appellate, except in certain specified .instances. Questions which were not presented to the trial court cannot be considered by this court, unless they are jurisdictional. We therefore cannot consider this matter. We cannot permit a hard case to cause us to disregard the mandatory provisions -of the statute. It is the duty <5f this court to declare the law. The pardoning power is vested in another department of the state government, to which this matter is respectfully referred.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11928: 11931: 11933: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Courtney v. State1928 OK CR 282, 269 P. 1059
  2. Mowels v. State1931 OK CR 457, 11 P.2d 205
  3. Meek v. State1933 OK CR 31, 22 P.2d 938
  4. Jackson v. State1915 OK CR 50, 148 P. 1058

Most recent

  1. Meek v. State1933 OK CR 31, 22 P.2d 938
  2. Mowels v. State1931 OK CR 457, 11 P.2d 205
  3. Courtney v. State1928 OK CR 282, 269 P. 1059
  4. Jackson v. State1915 OK CR 50, 148 P. 1058

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