TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Crosby v. State

F. E. CROSBY Et Al. v. STATE

Crosby v. State, 1927 OK CR 145, 257 P. 1113
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 14, 1927
Docket
No. A-5693.
Judges
Edwards, Doyle, Davenport
Citations
257 P. 11131927 OK CR 14537 Okla. Crim. 3121927 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 46

Opinion of the Court — Edwards

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted in the county court of Payne county on a charge of gambling and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and to serve ten days in the county jail.

The evidence is brief, and in substance is that the plaintiffs in error were shooting craps on the floor of a shining parlor, and that certain officers came and the dice were thrown under a seat and some money on the floor was covered by the foot of one of the parties, but was discovered and was taken in charge by the officers. The proof of the actual playing of the game is largely circumstantial, although a witness who was in business next door, which was in the room occupied by the shining parlor, but separated by a beaver board, gave direct testimony. The plaintiff in error Crosby was outside the building, and at the approach of the officers slapped the closed door of the building, apparently as a warning to those inside.

It is argued that the going to the place by the officers and entering the building was an illegal search. To this we cannot assent. The offense was committed in a public place, open to the public, and the mere going into the building was not such a search as required a search warrant.

*313 It is also argued that the evidence is insufficient. While, as stated, the evidence is circumstantial, it is such that the jury might logically and reasonably conclude that the plaintiffs in error were guilty as charged. Under the circumstances shown, however, we think the punishment is excessive, and the judgment is modified to omit entirely the-jail sentence imposed, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1931: 11937: 11954: 31956: 119312026peak 1954 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Camio165 Misc. 134 (1937)
  2. Ferguson v. State1931 OK CR 472, 4 P.2d 696
  3. Burgess v. State1954 OK CR 93, 273 P.2d 153
  4. Shaw v. State1956 OK CR 118, 303 P.2d 986
  5. Pueblo v. López77 P.R. Dec. 529 (1954)
  6. People v. López77 P.R. 500 (1954)

Most recent

  1. Shaw v. State1956 OK CR 118, 303 P.2d 986
  2. People v. López77 P.R. 500 (1954)
  3. Pueblo v. López77 P.R. Dec. 529 (1954)
  4. Burgess v. State1954 OK CR 93, 273 P.2d 153
  5. People v. Camio165 Misc. 134 (1937)
  6. Ferguson v. State1931 OK CR 472, 4 P.2d 696

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