Lamm v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1910 |
| Citation | 111 P. 1002,4 Okla.Crim. 641,1910 OK CR 254 |
| Parties | LAMM et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
(a) Section 1 of article 7 of the Session Laws of Oklahoma of 1905, page 326, gives to either party to a trial the right to demand of the court that the court stenographer shall take down in shorthand any statement made by any party to such trial which might properly be a part of the case-made for appeal or proceeding in error; and, if the court refuses to comply with such demand, the matter may be preserved in the record by affidavits or by any other competent evidence, and such refusal upon the part of the trial court will be ground for reversal, without regard to the merits thereof.
(b) Any party to a cause has the right to demand that the court stenographer shall be required to take down any matter which may transpire at the trial, when such matter, if objected to is such that it may properly be made a part of a case-made for appeal or proceeding in error.
(a) When any objection is made to the argument of the county attorney, and no exception is reserved to the action of the court in overruling said objection, improper remarks made by the county attorney in his argument will not be ground for a new trial unless they were of such a character that the injurious effect caused thereby could not be withdrawn from the minds of the jurors.
(b) Improper remarks made by a county attorney in his argument to the jury must be incorporated in the case-made and certified to by the trial judge before they can be considered upon appeal. Such remarks cannot be presented by affidavits unless it appears from the record that counsel for the defendant requested the trial judge to have such remarks taken down by the stenographer, in order that he might incorporate such remarks and his objections thereto in the record; and the court had refused to have this done. In that event only can such remarks be presented to this court upon appeal by affidavit.
(a) The law of agency governing civil cases has no application to the criminal law of this state; and, when a party assists in the commission of a crime, he cannot screen himself upon the ground that he was simply acting as agent.
(b) Where a defendant in a prosecution for violation of the prohibitory liquor law claims that he simply acted as the agent of the purchaser in procuring prohibited liquor, such claim will not constitute a defense. It rather shows that he is guilty upon his own testimony.
Appeal from Washita County Court; L. R. Shean, Judge.
Lee Lamm and others were convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and they appeal. Affirmed.
Smith & Wagner, for appellants.
Fred S Caldwell, for the State.
First. It is contended that the court erred in refusing appellants' motion to require the court stenographer to take down in shorthand all of the statements made by the court and attorneys in the presence and hearing of the jury. In support of this motion, appellants' counsel rely on section 1 of article 7, p. 326, Sess. Laws 1905, which is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Williams
...them need not be made, and the question as to whether they were improper may be presented on appeal. 2 Okla.Crim. 362, 102 P. 57; 4 Okla.Crim. 641, 111 P. 1002. 4. verdict is grossly excessive. 76 Ark. 193. Jones & Campbell, for appellee. 1. Instruction 8 was not erroneous. The construction......