McDowell v State

McDowell v State
1948 OK CR 82
197 P.2d 531
87 Okl.Cr. 295
Decided: 09/08/1948
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Trial-Conflicting Issues of Fact for the Jury. Conflicting issues of fact are for the sole determination of the jury.

2. Homicide-Conviction for Manslaughter not Reduced, Unless Evidence Insufficient. Before conviction for manslaughter will be reversed as contrary to the evidence, it must appear that there is no testimony in the record from which the jury could rationally conclude defendant was guilty, unless it appeared that the jury was influenced by improper motives.

3. Same-Evidence Held Sufficient to Sustain Conviction for Manslaughter in First Degree and Sentence of 7 Years in Penitentiary. Record examined, and evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for manslaughter in the first degree and sentence of seven years imprisonment in State Penitentiary is approved.

Appeal from District Court, Love County; John C. Caldwell, Judge.

Charles Raymond McDowell was convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, sentenced to serve seven years in the State Penitentiary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Page 296

J. Woody Dixon, of Marietta, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, J. The defendant, Charlie Raymond McDowell, was charged in the district court of Love county with the crime of murder, was tried, convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to serve seven years in the State Penitentiary at McAlester and has appealed.

No brief has been filed on behalf of defendant and no appearance was made in his behalf at the time the case was assigned for oral argument.

We have carefully examined the record. The information properly charges the crime of murder alleged to have been committed on September 17, 1946, by discharging a pistol into the body of one Leland L. McCorkle.

The evidence showed that the killing occurred at a beer tavern, near the Texas border known as Frank's Night Spot. The deceased and one Ware were sitting in a booth in the tavern when the defendant approached the booth and fired the shot which killed McCorkle.

The defendant admitted the shooting but contended that he fired the shot in self-defense. The evidence on behalf of defendant showed that the deceased together with Ware had been at a room occupied by the defend-ant shortly before the shooting occurred and had engaged the defendant in a dice game. The deceased was a professional gambler and bootlegger. Many witnesses testified to the bad reputation of the deceased and to the good reputation of the defendant, and this evidence probably accounts for the fact that the defendant received the

Page 297