Babb v. State
| Citation | 217 P. 1054,24 Okla.Crim. 302 |
| Decision Date | 08 September 1923 |
| Docket Number | A-4235. |
| Parties | BABB v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In a prosecution for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is insufficient, under Comp. St. 1921,§ 2701, to sustain a conviction.
Appeal from County Court, Garfield County; E. L. Swigert, Judge.
Arthur Babb was convicted of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
In a prosecution for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is insufficient, under Comp.St.1921, § 2701, 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 742, to sustain a conviction.
H. J Sturgis, of Enid, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and N.W. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appeal from the county court of Garfield county. Conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, with punishment assessed at a fine of $500 and imprisonment in the county jail for 180 days. Judgment rendered November 9, 1921. Petition in error and case-made filed in this court March 6, 1922.
It is contended that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The conviction is based upon the evidence of Charles Blakely, an accomplice, and the testimony of other witnesses corroborative of Blakely's testimony. The testimony of Blakely makes out a clear case of guilt on the part of this defendant, of the crime charged, and, if a conviction in this state were permissible upon the uncorrroborated testimony of an accomplice, this conviction could stand.
Section 2701, Compiled Statutes 1921, provides:
"A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof."
It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error that the corroboration of the accomplice in this case only tends to show the commission of the offense, and wholly fails to tend to connect this plaintiff in error with this commission. We find ample evidence in the record of witnesses other than the accomplice, which tends to prove the manufacture of intoxicating liquor by somebody, but the testimony of these witnesses other than the accomplice...
To continue reading
Request your trial