Orr v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | A-3884. |
| Citation | 205 P. 941,21 Okla.Crim. 189 |
| Parties | ORR v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The accused, on cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, may show, if he can, the malice and ill feeling of the witness growing out of collateral matters.
Where the evidence supporting the conviction is conflicting and of doubtful probative force, this court will the more carefully consider other irregularities at the trial which, in the abstract, may not ordinarily be prejudicial, in order to ascertain from a consideration of the whole record whether the defendant in fact had a fair trial.
Appeal from County Court, Coal County; F. W. Saunders, Judge.
Ruth Orr was convicted of violating the prohibitory laws of this state and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50, and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. M Threadgill, of Coalgate, for plaintiff in error.
S. P Freeling, Atty. Gen., and E. L. Fulton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Ruth Orr was by information filed in the county court of Coal county, April 20, 1920, charged with violating the prohibitory laws of this state on March 19, 1920, by selling to C. B. Mathews a half pint of whisky. At the trial C. B Mathews and Shell Quinton, the only witnesses for the state testified tat they purchased a pint of whisky from the accused at her residence in Coalgate late in the afternoon of the day last mentioned. Mathews testified that it was corn or white whisky, delivered to him in a pint bottle with a glass stopper, for which he paid the accused woman four silver dollars and two half dollars. Quinton testified that it was red whisky, not corn whisky, delivered in a pint bottle with a cork stopper, and that Mathews paid for it with a five dollar bill. Mathews admitted that he had been drinking some before he went to Ruth's house, and both witnesses were placed in jail that night for being drunk and disorderly.
The accused woman testified that she was not at home that afternoon, and that her sick mother was the only person present at her home that afternoon; that the mother reported that two men had been there that afternoon; she denied that she sold these men, or any men, any whisky. Mathews was impeached by several witnesses for the accused, to the effect that his reputation for truth and veracity was bad. One of the impeaching witnesses testified that Mathews was not normal mentally and was a kind of moral degenerate, and a frequent violator of the law. Quinton was a friend of Mathews and not well known, and had no reputation, one way or another.
An effort was made to show that the prosecuting witness, Mathews, was suspected of stealing some jewelry belonging to the accused woman while at her house in her absence, for which a search warrant had been issued. One of the errors complained of is that the accused was not permitted to show fully the malice and ill feeling of Mathews towards her, growing out of this jewelry theft. On cross-examination of complaining witness, Mathews, the following appears:
To continue reading
Request your trial