TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brown v. Territory of Oklahoma

John W. Brown v. the Territory of Oklahoma

Brown v. Territory of Okla., 82 P. 647 (Okla. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 5, 1905
Judges
Burford, Hainer
Citations
82 P. 64715 Okla. 362
Syllabus
1. APPEAL — Dismissed, When, where a cause is brought to this court from an alleged judgment of conviction in a criminal cause and the record contains no copy of the judgment of the trial court or recital of what the judgment was, the appeal will be dismissed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from. the District Court of Pawnee County; before Payará T. Rainer, Trial Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Burford

Opinion of the court by Burford, C. J.:

The plaintiff in error, John Brown, was prosecuted in the district court of Pawnee county for the crime of obtaining money under false pretense. He was acquitted of said charge. At the succeeding term of court an indictment was returned against Brown charging him with the crime, of perjury. It was alleged that upon the trial of the former cause he was sworn and testified as a witness in his own behalf, and that he gave certain testimony material to the issues therein which was known by him to be false. The cause is now in this court upon appeal from an alleges judgment of conviction rendered in the latter cause..

The case made contains no copy of the judgment of the district court, nor does it contain any statement that a *363 judgment of conviction was rendered against the defendant, the plaintiff in error; neither does the record contain any motion for new trial. There is a recital that a motion for new trial was filed, presented and overruled, but we have no means of knowing what it contains, or upon what the plaintiff in error relied as grounds for new trial in the court below. We cannot consider the alleged errors embraced in the petition in error upon so defective a record. It is the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff in error is entitled to appeal from. There is nothing to inform this court that any judgment has ever been rendered.

It was held in Sproat v. Durland, 7 Okla. 230 , that a record which contains no copy of the final order of judgment of the court sought to be reviewed, presents no question to the supreme court, and the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed, at the costs of plaintiff in error.

Hainer, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11910: 21912: 11914: 11915: 219092026peak 1910 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McLellan v. State1909 OK CR 95, 103 P. 876
  2. Bradford v. State1910 OK CR 9, 106 P. 535
  3. Mobley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.1915 OK 600, 145 P. 321
  4. Schuck v. Moore1915 OK 519, 150 P. 461
  5. Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Fain1912 OK 295, 124 P. 70
  6. Schuck v. Moore150 P. 461 (Okla. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Schuck v. Moore1915 OK 519, 150 P. 461
  2. Schuck v. Moore150 P. 461 (Okla. 1915)
  3. Mobley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.1915 OK 600, 145 P. 321
  4. Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Fain1912 OK 295, 124 P. 70
  5. Bradford v. State1910 OK CR 9, 106 P. 535
  6. Meadors v. Johnson1910 OK 21, 117 P. 198

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sproat v. Durland, 1898 OK 88, 54 P. 458 15

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