McAlester v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1918 |
| Docket Number | A-2927. |
| Parties | McALESTER v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In a prosecution for having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, evidence held to show that a witness was an accomplice of the defendant.
Three pints of whisky discovered at defendant's home were not sufficient in quantity to raise a presumption that he had them for an unlawful purpose.
Proof of possession merely is not sufficient to authorize a conviction of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors.
Corroboration of an accomplice not tending to connect defendant with commission of the crime of having unlawful possession of liquors, but merely tending to show that he had possession of whisky held insufficient.
Appeal from County Court, Stephens County; J. W. Marshall, Judge.
Arthur McAlester was convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days, and he appeals. Reversed.
J. B Wilkinson, of Duncan, for plaintiff in error.
S. P Freeling, Atty. Gen., and R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, Arthur McAlester, was convicted at the October 1916, term of the county court of Stephens county for the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed as above stated. He has appealed to this court and asks a reversal of this judgment, upon several grounds, among which are that the verdict and judgment are not supported by sufficient legal and competent evidence, and also because of error in the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
We have examined the record and find that the conviction is based largely upon evidence given by one Ray Boyd, who testified in substance that he got four pints of whisky from the defendant with the understanding with the defendant that he (Boyd) was to sell the whisky and to bring the money back to the defendant, except that Boyd was to keep 25 cents for each pint sold; that Boyd was engaged in the business of running a little hamburger stand in the town of Marlow, said county, and four pints of whisky which he claimed belonged to the defendant were found in his possession at the hamburger stand. When arrested, Boyd told the officers that the whisky belonged to McAlester, and a search warrant was issued for McAlester's home, and three pints of the same kind of whisky were discovered at McAlester's house. This was, in substance, all the evidence given in behalf of the state.
It is apparent...
To continue reading
Request your trial