TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Colbert v. State

Bill Colbert v. State.

Colbert v. State, 1910 OK CR 232, 113 P. 561
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 21, 1910
Docket
No. A-135.
Judges
Doyle, Furman, Richardson
Citations
113 P. 5611910 OK CR 2324 Okla. Crim. 4871910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 136
Disposition
Eeversed.
Syllabus
INSTRUCTIONS — On Punishment. Where an instruction given only states the, maximum term of imprisonment and omits to state the minimum or alternative punishment that may be imposed. Held, that the judgment and .conviction must be reversed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Appeal from District Court, Atoka County; A. T. West, Judge. Bill Colbert was convicted of the crime of larceny 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 — Doyle

DOYLE, Judge.

Plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of larceny. The jury assessed the punishment at two years5 imprisonment in the state penitentiary. The judgment and sentence was entered on December 7, 1908. An appeal was taken by filing in this court, on April 15, 1909, a petition in error with case-made attached.

The offense is alleged to have been committed before statehood, and the indictment is based upon the act of Congress approved February 2, 1903, which provided:

“That any person, whether an Indian or otherwise, who shall hereafter be convicted in the Indian Territory of stealing any horse, mare, gelding, filly, foal, mule, ass, or jenny, or of steal *488 ing, or marking, killing, or wounding with intent to steal, any kind of cattle, pigs, hogs, sheep, or goats, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.” (Statutes at Large, vol. 32, part one, p. 792, chap. 350).

It is only necessary to notice the assignment which alleges that -the court erred in instructing the jury that:

Hn\the event you find the defendant guilty, then you will assess his punishment, which is not over fifteen years in the state penitentiary.”

We are of the opinion that the judgment must be reversed because of error of the court in failing to instruct as to the minimum and the alternative punishment prescribed by said act of Congress.

It appears that the plaintiff in error in this case is the identical party who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the district court of Pittsburg county for the crime of conjoint robbery; which judgment and sentence was, on appeal, affirmed at this term.

Judgment reversed.

FURMAN, Presiding Judge, and RICHARDSON, Judge, concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 11917: 11938: 11954: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mead v. State1938 OK CR 94, 83 P.2d 404
  2. Hill v. State1954 OK CR 15, 266 P.2d 979
  3. West v. State1917 OK CR 92, 164 P. 327
  4. Williams v. State1912 OK CR 212, 124 P. 330

Most recent

  1. Hill v. State1954 OK CR 15, 266 P.2d 979
  2. Mead v. State1938 OK CR 94, 83 P.2d 404
  3. West v. State1917 OK CR 92, 164 P. 327
  4. Williams v. State1912 OK CR 212, 124 P. 330

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