Harrell v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | A-5885. |
| Parties | HARRELL v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In felony cases, other than capital, the names of additional witnesses may be indorsed on an information after the filing of the same, at such time as the court may by rule prescribe. Procedure Criminal, section 2511, C. S. 1921.
Under the statute, permission to indorse the names of additional witnesses on an information during the trial is a matter within the judicial discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of this discretion appears prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant, its ruling will not be reviewed.
The exclusion of witnesses for the state, at defendant's request, is not an absolute right in all cases, but rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and this includes the power to except one or more witnesses from the operation of the rule.
It is proper practice to permit the prosecuting witness, or some officer active in the prosecution of the case, to remain in the courtroom to advise the prosecuting attorney as to the facts, interest, and character of witnesses, etc., though the state's witnesses generally are excluded.
In a prosecution for larceny, evidence reviewed, and held sufficient to sustain conviction.
Appeal from District Court, Cotton County; A. S. Wells, Judge.
Thomas C. Harrell was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
D. B Madden and Walter Hubbell, both of Walters, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Short, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Upon an information charging that in Cotton county, February 2, 1924 Thomas C. Harrell, did feloniously take, steal, and carry away 100 bushels of oats, of the value of $55 the property of G. M. Janes, he was tried, convicted, and, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year and one day. He has appealed from the judgment.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
The undisputed facts show that Dr. G. M. Janes, was the owner of several hundred bushels of oats, raised on his farm 14 miles south of Walters, and stored in a granary on the adjoining farm of E. R. Taylor; that appellant was engaged in the business of buying oats, and drove his truck into Cotton county, and learned from inquiries made along the road that Dr. Janes had oats in a granary on the Taylor farm.
E. R Taylor, testified that appellant came to his place and said Dr. Janes sold him some oats; he said his name was Bowles; that he loaded about 100 bushels of the oats into his truck.
Dr. Janes testified that he never saw appellant before he was arrested, an that the oats were taken without his knowledge or consent.
Mrs. E. R. Taylor testified that appellant drove up to the house and asked her if Dr. Janes had any oats there. She said, "Yes." He told her his name was Bowles; then drove to the granary where her husband was.
J. D. Kerr, sheriff, testified that he arrested appellant at Burkburnett, Tex.; at that time appellant said he sold the oats to an elevator at Burkburnett.
As a witness in his own behalf, appellant That he had been engaged in buying oats in Cotton county and selling them at Burkburnett. That on February 2d he drove to Cotton county and was informed that Dr. Janes had oats to sell on the Taylor place. That he drove there that evening and asked Mr Taylor if Dr. Janes had oats to sell, and what they were worth. Mr. Taylor said he did, and they were worth 55 or 60 cents, he did not know which. He told him he wanted to buy some, and that he would come back on Monday...
To continue reading
Request your trial