TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ferguson v. State

JOHN F. FERGUSON Et Al. v. STATE

Ferguson v. State, 1931 OK CR 472, 4 P.2d 696
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 30, 1931
Docket
No. A-8175.
Judges
Edwards, Davenpobt, Chappell
Citations
4 P.2d 6961931 OK CR 47252 Okla. Crim. 2641931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 454

Opinion of the Court — Edwards

*265 EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Payne county on a charge of gambling, and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and in addition the defendant Jim Ferguson was sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail.

At the time charged, the sheriff and two deputies, with a search warrant, went to the residence of one Hall. They forced their way into the house and found a crap table and cloth, designated a dice blanket, with numbers on it, a dice cup and dice, and 65 cents in money. One witness testified that, as they entered the house, Hall called out, “Abe, clean up,” and the same witness testified he heard the sound of money rattling. Another officer with this witness did not recall hearing this expression. The defendants were in or going into an adjoining room when the officers entered. They all testify that they did not participate in any game and that no gambling had been going on.

The crime of gambling may be proven, as any other crime, by circumstantial evidence. McCarty v. State, 21 Okla. Cr. 365 , 207 Pac. 1069 ; Rush v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 126 , 210 Pac. 316 ; Crosby et al. v. State, 37 Okla. Cr. 312 , 257 Pac. 1113 ; State v. Boyer, 79 Iowa, 330 , 44 N. W. 558 .

In cases where the charge is gambling, usually something more than the mere finding of paraphernalia for gambling is required; some noise, expression, or conduct indicating that a gambling game is in progress. Here only one witness testifies to an expression that might indicate a playing of a game of chance or which might indicate only the presence of gambling devices. We have a very strong suspicion that defendants were engaged in *266 a crap game or were preparing to enter into one, bnt are not able to say the evidence proves that a game was being played.

The case is reversed.

DAVENPOBT, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1938: 21954: 11956: 119382026peak 1938 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shaw v. State1956 OK CR 118, 303 P.2d 986
  2. Phillips v. State1938 OK CR 79, 82 P.2d 246
  3. Phillips v. State1938 OK CR 43, 78 P.2d 828
  4. Burgess v. State1954 OK CR 93, 273 P.2d 153

Most recent

  1. Shaw v. State1956 OK CR 118, 303 P.2d 986
  2. Burgess v. State1954 OK CR 93, 273 P.2d 153
  3. Phillips v. State1938 OK CR 79, 82 P.2d 246
  4. Phillips v. State1938 OK CR 43, 78 P.2d 828

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
McCarty v. State, 1922 OK CR 110, 207 P. 1069 12
Crosby v. State, 1927 OK CR 145, 257 P. 1113 6
Rush v. State, 1921 OK CR 194, 210 P. 316 6
State v. Boyer, 44 N.W. 558 (Iowa 1890) 6

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