Legal Opinion

Hallmark v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided January 27, 1923No. A-3828PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatson, P. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The first assignment of error is not supported by the record. In overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence the trial judge indulged in a lengthy discussion on the question of his duties in the premises, and in so doing stated that he did not know as a) matter of fact whether or not the defendant was guilty; that it was the duty of the jury to weigh the evidence and to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, and in this connection further said:

“It is not the province of the court, as I…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lumpkin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
  2. Inman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1922
  3. Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1923
  4. Hunter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cooper v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1937
  2. Coffey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1927
  3. State v. GagerHawaii Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Taylor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1929
  5. State v. StrongNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API