Bottoms v State

Bottoms v State
1931 OK CR 431
3 P.2d 458
52 Okl.Cr. 144
Decided: 09/25/1931
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors Conviction for Transporting Sustained. The evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

2. Same Sentence Reduced. For reasons for modifying judgment, see body of opinion.

Appeal from County Court, Washita County; Jesse Stovall, Judge.

Clyde Bottoms was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Darnell & LaRue, for plaintiff in error.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVENPORT, P.J. The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and to be imprisoned in the county jail for 60 days, and has appealed.

Page 145

The testimony on behalf of the state tends to show that the defendant was driving along the public highway, and the officers followed him; after they had followed him for some time, the officers claim the defendant stopped his car and set a carton by the side of the road and drove on; the officers followed him for some distance and arrested him; at the time of the arrest the officers had no knowledge as to what was in the carton claimed by them to have been put out of the car by the defendant. The officers claim that after they took the defendant back to where the carton was they examined it and it contained whisky.

The defendant denied any knowledge of the whisky and stated positively he did not put the whisky out of his car. Several witnesses testified in the defendant's behalf as to his previous good character; that he had never been charged with an offense before; it was after dark when the officers followed the defendant, and they claim they were close enough to him to see him stop the car and put out the carton, and that he drove away before they caught up with him. The jury heard the testimony and decided the facts against the defendant. There is a conflict in the testimony, but this court will not undertake to settle the conflict. That was a question for the jury.