Green v. State
| Citation | 122 P. 1108,7 Okla.Crim. 194,1912 OK CR 150 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1912 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In every criminal prosecution, it devolves upon the state to prove, first, the corpus delicti; second, that the crime charged was committed by the accused.
The "corpus delicti" means, when applied to any particular offense, the actual commission by some of the particular offense charged.
Where the evidence only raises a mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, it is insufficient to warrant a conviction; and where it clearly appears that the findings of fact and the decision of the trial court has no substantial support, or is clearly without support in the evidence, the judgment will be reversed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Custer County; J. W. Lawter, Judge.
Abe Green was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Le Roy Jones, of Cordell, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
Plaintiff in error, Abe Green, was charged, by information filed in the superior court of Custer county, with, on July 15, 1910 unlawfully selling to one Warren Lucas a bottle of beer for 50 cents. On the same day, another information was filed identical, except it alleged the sale to one W. M. Heiligman.
At the September term of said superior court, the first case came on for trial, and, inasmuch as both cases involved the same transaction, place, circumstances, and witnesses, it was agreed by the state and the defendant that the two cases be tried together, and, a jury being waived, the cases thus consolidated were tried before the court. The state introduced its evidence and rested, and the defendant interposed a demurrer thereto, for the reason it wholly fails to sustain the allegations in the informations. The demurrer was by the court overruled and exception allowed. The defendant then took the stand and testified on his own behalf.
The finding of the trial judge upon the facts proven was that the defendant was guilty in each case. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, on the ground that there was no evidence showing the commission of the offenses charged which was overruled by the court. September 30th judgment and sentence was entered that the defendant serve a term of 30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $50 in each case. The defendant appealed.
The petition alleges that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence; that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding and decision of the court; that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The assignments of error all go to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Before reviewing the evidence, it is proper that we should briefly notice the established rules to be observed in considering this question.
In every criminal prosecution, it devolves upon the state to prove, first, the corpus delicti (that is, the fact that the crime charged has been actually perpetrated); second, that it was committed by the accused. This court will not ordinarily disturb the decision of a trial judge in overruling a demurrer to the evidence, or in denying a motion for a new trial, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the trial court, where a jury has been waived; and it will not do so where the record discloses evidence showing the commission of the offense charged, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial