TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nichols v. State

Leo Nichols v. State.

Nichols v. State, 1916 OK CR 87, 159 P. 1091
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 30, 1916
Docket
No. A-2625.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
159 P. 10911916 OK CR 8712 Okla. Crim. 5331916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 94
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
INTOXICATING- LIQUORS — Offenses — -Evidence—Sufficiency. In a prosecution for having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell same, evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Pottaivatomie County. Hal Johnson, Judge. Leo Nichols, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, 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 — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Leo Nichols, was convicted in the county court of Pottawatomie county on a charge that he did have possession of intoxicating liquors, to-wit., whisky with intent to sell the same and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for sixty days and a fine of Two Hundred and Eifty Dollars.

From the judgment and sentence entered on the verdict, he appealed by filing in this court on January 6, 1916, a petition in error with case-made.

The evidence shows that Gus Mitchell, deputy sheriff and two or three other deputies in serving a search warrant against the Old Herald Building in ithe city of Shawnee, found the defendant there in possession of certain intoxicating liquors,, which he attempted to destroy in the presence of the officers. No* evidence was offered on behalf of the defendant.

From a careful examination of the record, it appears that this appeal is -wholly destitute of merit. The evidence of guilt is conclusive, and no material error is apparent. The judgment and sentence appealed from is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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