Ex parte Albertson

Ex parte Albertson
1947 OK CR 78
183 P.2d 255
84 Okl.Cr. 402
Decided: 07/09/1947
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus--Defendant Entitled to Bail Where Evidence Raises Presumption of Probable Accidental and not intentional Homicide. Where the defendant is the only eyewitness and his testimony raises a presumption of a case of probable accidental and not intentional homicide and his testimony is uncontroverted by any direct proof to the contrary, defendant is entitled to release from jail pending trial on a charge of murder.

Page 403

2. Same--Bail Granted in Sum of $20,000. Application for writ of habeas corpus praying for grant of bail pending trial in the district court examined, and, after hearing thereon, order entered allowing bail of $20,000.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Thomas A. Albertson. Writ granted.

O. A. Cargill, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and W. N. Mounger, Asst. County Atty., of Oklahoma City, for respondent.

BRETT, J. The petitioner, Thomas A. Albertson, was charged in Oklahoma county with the crime of murder. At the preliminary examination he was held to the district court without bail. An information was filed against him in the district court of Oklahoma county, Okla., and said Thomas A. Albertson is now confined in the county jail of Oklahoma county, Okla.

Petition was made to the district court of Oklahoma county for writ of habeas corpus and a hearing thereon on the 13th day of May, 1947, which was duly heard by said court and the defendant, Thomas A. Albertson, was denied bail.

He filed his petition with this court on June 26, 1947, for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is not guilty of the crime of murder as charged and that the proof of murder, as charged, is not evident nor the presumption thereof great.

This petition was heard by agreement of the parties in this court on June 30, 1947, at the conclusion of which said proceeding was continued until July 2, 1947, and on said last date completed. It is unnecessary to give a detailed statement of the testimony presented at the hearing before this court. A complete transcript of the testimony