Kelly v. State

• Decision Date: 19 September 1931
• Docket Number: A-8117.
• Citation: 3 P.2d 244,52 Okla.Crim. 125
• Parties: KELLY v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

3 P.2d 244

52 Okla.Crim. 125

KELLY v. STATE.

No. A-8117.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

September 19, 1931

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Such exhibits were admissible, though they were found after defendant had been incarcerated in jail and several months after commission of offense, since defendant's objection on that ground went to the weight and not to the admissibility of evidence.

Appeal from District Court, Creek County; Thomas S. Harris, Judge.

Joe Kelly was convicted of the crime of obtaining merchandise and money by means of a bogus check, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

In prosecution for obtaining property by bogus check, exhibits found on defendant's premises several months after commission of crime held admissible.

R. R Rittenhouse, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

CHAPPELL J.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Creek county of the crime of obtaining merchandise and money from Humes Drug Company, by means of a false and bogus check, and his punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of two years.

Defendant in his brief says that there is only one assignment of error deemed essential to a determination of the issue in this case on appeal, and that is his No. 4, which reads as follows: "Said court erred in admitting, over the objection of plaintiff in error, certain incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial testimony and evidence, which testimony and evidence was introduced for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the jury against said defendant, plaintiff in error here."

The particular contention of defendant is that the court erred in admitting in evidence exhibits which were found on the premises of defendant, after he had been incarcerated in jail and several months after the commission of the offense.

The objection of the defendant and his argument in his brief made to the competency and relevancy of this evidence are directed against its weight and not against its admissibility. The finding of these particular exhibits, which were so closely connected with the commission of the crime, on the premises owned by this defendant, was a circumstance that the jury had a right to consider, and the fact that these exhibits were not discovered by the officers when the search was made and were not...