Legal Opinion

Breedlove v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided January 17, 1931No. A-7782PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county on a charge of maiming and was sentenced to serve a term of seven years in the state penitentiary.

The record discloses a state of facts about as follows: On the night of May 15, 1929, about the hour of 12:30 a. m., some one entered the home of Mrs. Eula Condon at Tulsa, and threw nitric acid upon her face and body, destroying the sight of one eye and permanently burning and disfiguring her. The evidence, while entirely circumstantial, tends very strongly to prove the guilt of defendant.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rutherford v. United StatesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1908
  2. Bock v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926
  3. Hess v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926
  4. Moore v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Long v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1943
  2. Knight v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1941
  3. Teague v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1935
  4. Hammons v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1945
  5. Matin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1958

2 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