TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taggart v. State

Taggart v. State, 1916 OK CR 78, 159 P. 940
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 18, 1916
Docket
No. A-2570.
Judges
Brett, Doyle, Armstrong
Citations
159 P. 9401916 OK CR 7812 Okla. Crim. 5091916 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85
Disposition
Reversed.
Syllabus
1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Conviction—Variance. A conviction cannot be upheld where the evidence wholly fails to establish the offense charged in the information. 2. CONVICTION — Testimony. The law will not permit a conviction in a haphazard way. If it did, no citizen’s liberty would be seeúre; for even the most upright might become the victim of hearsay testimony.
Summary
Error from County Court, Oklahoma County; Wm. H. Zwick, Judge. Jim Taggart was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to illegally dispose of same, and he brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Brett

BRETT, J.

The plaintiff in error was prosecuted and convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to illegally dispose of same.

The state confesses error on the ground that the verdict and judgment is not supported by the evidence; and we have carefully read the evidence, and are forced to the same conclusion. Had the state elected to prosecute plaintiff in error for illegally transporting and conveying the beer found in his buggy, the record before us would sustain a conviction, but there is a total failure to prove that he intended to sejl or otherwise furnish it to others. There was considerable evidence concerning a fishing camp out on the river which bore the earmarks of a “booze joint,” but there was no evidence admitted which connected the plaintiff in error with this camp. There was some incompetent, *510 hearsay evidence tendered, which was properly ruled out by the court, which tended to connect him with this camp; and this tendered evidence doubtless left its impress upon the jury, and resulted in the verdict returned. The plaintiff in error may be guilty of the offense charged, but the law will not permit a conviction in a haphazard way. If it did, no citizen’s liberty would be secure; for even the most upright might become the victim of hearsay testimony.

The judgment is reversed.

DOYLE, P. J., and ARMSTRONG, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1917: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dotson v. State1917 OK CR 176, 166 P. 902

Most recent

  1. Dotson v. State1917 OK CR 176, 166 P. 902

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