Jones v. State

Citation136 P. 182,10 Okla.Crim. 216,1913 OK CR 287
PartiesJONES v. STATE.
Decision Date01 November 1913
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court.

Under the law in this state issues of fact arising in the trial of a criminal action are for the jury, and when there is a clear conflict in the testimony their finding thereon will not be disturbed by this court on appeal.

Under the common law the repeal of a penal statute operated as a remission of all penalties for violations thereof committed before its repeal, unless the repealing statute contained a provision expressly reserving the right to the state to continue such prosecution, but under the Constitution and laws of our state this rule is abrogated; there being a constitutional provision and a general statute reserving this right to the state.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

The words "penalty," "liability," and "forfeiture" are frequently treated as synonymous with the word "punishment," in connection with crimes of the highest grade.

Appeal from District Court, Carter County; S.W. Russell, Judge.

Oce Jones was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

Johnson & McGill and Cruce & Potter, all of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ARMSTRONG P.J.

The plaintiff in error, Oce Jones was convicted at the November 1911, term of the district court of Carter county on a charge of larceny of domestic animals, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of 10 years. To review the judgment of conviction he has brought this appeal. The prosecuting witness, W. R. Cypert, and the accused were near neighbors, living in Carter county, Okl. On the night of January 18, 1911, four horses and one mule were stolen from Cypert, and were later found in the Arbuckle Mountains, in a pasture used by the accused. Warren Yell and Bryant Ballew were jointly charged with the offense. They testified against the accused that on the evening of the larceny he gave them $10 each to help him move the horses up into the Arbuckle Mountains to his pasture; that he told them he would see that they did not get into trouble. The accused bought some carbolic acid at Heflin's drug store just before the trip. This fact is testified to by witness Coffee and by the druggist Heflin. The three left Jones' house on horseback, the accused riding a large, brown bay horse the property of Yell, the other two riding smaller horses each horse being shod all round. They rode north to the pasture of prosecuting witness, and there found the horses and mule. The accused cut the wire fence with clippers, and they took four horses and one mule. They had some trouble catching the horses, and left one they could not get hold of. They left the field and traveled south along what the accused told his associates was the Ardmore road, for the purpose of turning people off their track and leaving the impression that the horses had gone south. After going some distance they doubled back on an old road, and went back north to the Arbuckle Mountains, to a pasture commonly known as "No Mans" pasture, in which the accused had been keeping stock. It appears that this pasture is on top of the Arbuckles, and is made by adjoining landowners fencing their lands on all sides of it. No one seems to have any legitimate claim to the tract of land constituting this pasture. This is apparently a place scarcely ever visited, and practically impossible of being found except by those being very familiar with the surrounding country and its particular location. This place was reached early in the morning of January 19th, and is apparently about 15 miles from where the horses were taken. After reaching the pasture the stock were rebranded with the carbolic acid purchased the day before at Heflin's drug store in Lone Grove. Three or four days later, when the horses were found, there were fresh brands on them which had the appearance of having been made by acid and bore the odor of carbolic acid. There was a leather halter on the mule, which was taken off and hidden under a rock. One of the accomplices told the officers where this halter could be found, and later took the officers to this place and the halter was so found. After branding the stock the parties separated; Jones going one direction, Yell and Ballew in another. It appears that the horse the accused rode on the night of the larceny belonged to Accomplice Yell; that he recovered the same about a month later from a brother-in-law of the accused. Yell and Ballew were arrested a short time after the larceny. The accused was not located for six or seven months, and not until he came into Ardmore and surrendered to the officers. His family, however, continued to live at Lone Grove and near the town of Dixie.

The accused entered a plea of not guilty and undertook to establish an alibi. The principal witnesses testifying thereto were two brothers, and from a reading of the record it is not surprising that the jury found against him, as the testimony of these witnesses is thoroughly impeached by the state, and their stories are most unlikely. In fact there is very little straightforward, reasonable, convincing testimony on behalf of the accused. There are many other corroborating circumstances supporting the stories told by the accomplices, entirely sufficient in our judgment to warrant the finding of the jury. With this in view this court will not reverse this judgment, in the absence of substantial errors of law.

The only material law point raised by counsel for plaintiff in error is based on the contention that the crime was committed on the 18th of January, 1911,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 20, 1913
    ...and required the infliction of the maximum punishment in a case of larceny, see opinion. On rehearing. Affirmed. For former opinion, see 136 P. 182. J. First. Owing to sickness, the writer did not participate in the consideration and decision of this cause when it was first submitted. As co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT