Rupard v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1912 |
| Citation | 122 P. 1108,7 Okla.Crim. 201,1912 OK CR 152 |
| Parties | RUPARD v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In prosecutions for unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place in this state to another place therein, the state is only required to establish by the proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the liquor charged to have been conveyed, or some portion of it, was conveyed as alleged in the information.
As a matter of defense, a person charged in the courts of this state with conveying intoxicating liquor may prove that the liquor so conveyed was a lawful purchase, intended for a lawful purpose; and when this is done, to the extent of raising a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, he is entitled to an acquittal.
When a person is on trial, charged with unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place to another in this state and the proof establishes the conveyance as alleged, and no proof is introduced by the accused, a judgment of conviction is proper, and will be affirmed on appeal.
Appeal from Washita County Court; L. R. Shean, Judge.
L. T Rupard was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
Massingale & Duff, of Cordele, for plaintiff in error.
Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen. for the State.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the October 1910, term of the county court of Washita county on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place in the city of Foss to another place in said city.
The proof on behalf of the state shows that the plaintiff in error was suspected of selling intoxicating liquor, and was being watched by the city marshal; that the plaintiff in error went into a booth in the rear of a pool hall with another person, and was followed by the officer, who began to search the other party, whereupon the accused ran out and started away. The officer pursued him a short distance, and saw him throw a bottle of whisky to one side in the snow. The arrest and prosecution followed. Accused introduced no testimony whatever in his own behalf.
In the case of Clarence Maynes v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. --, 119 P. 644, this court held: "In prosecutions for conveying intoxicating liquor, the state is only required to establish by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the intoxicating liquor charged to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial