History
  • No items yet
midpage
Luppy v. State
14 Okla. Crim. 386
Okla. Crim. App.
1918
Check Treatment

No brief has been filed nor oral argument made in behalf of plaintiffs in error. This case is submitted on the record. We find the information sufficient to support a charge of unlawfully transporting *Page 387 intoxicating liquors. While the evidence is conflicting, that upon the part of the state sufficiently supports the allegations of the information. No exceptions were taken to any of the instructions given by the court. After an examination of same, we find that they correctly state the law, and are as favorable to the defendants as their defense would warrant.

The application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is without merit, because it is apparent from this record that the defendants knew of the absent witness long before they were tried, and did not exercise due diligence either to obtain his presence at the trial or to take his deposition, and also that, if such person had been produced as a witness, he could not have been made to testify to facts or circumstances which would tend solely to incriminate himself, and the affidavit shows that the facts which were expected to be proved by said witness were such as would fasten the guilt for the alleged crime upon him.

After a careful examination of the record, we find no error sufficient to justify a reversal of this judgment, and said judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed. *Page 388

Case Details

Case Name: Luppy v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Date Published: Mar 19, 1918
Citation: 14 Okla. Crim. 386
Docket Number: No. A-2881.
Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.