Santino v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, J.
The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff in error sold whisky to Bob Bonnett and three other young men, all under 21 years of age. The plaintiff in error makes assignments as follows: That the information does not state an offense for the reason that the law under which it is drawn is unconstitutional, and, if constitutional, the information is deficient in not charging that the acts were “feloniously” done'; that the court erred in its charge; that the evidence is insufficient on the question of proof of the age of the person to whom it was alleged the whisky was sold.
As to the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Hooker, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- United States v. StaatsSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- Ex Parte CainSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Castleberry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1914
- Fooshee v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Harrigill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1950
- Riley v. Lukens Dredging & Contracting Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1933
- State v. HejdukCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1951
- Trimble v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
- Cox v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.