Delano v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
JONES, P.
This appeal seeks an interpretation of our slot machine and punchboard statutes, 21 O. S.1941 §§ 964-977, as applied to the machine owned by defendant.
Since their enactment by the Legislature in 1939 these statutes have been before this court twice for construction. Ex parte Davis, 66 Okla. Cr. 271, 91 P.2d 799; Couch v. State, 71 Okla. Cr. 223, 110 P.2d 613.
The defendant at the time of his arrest was the owner of a penny arcade in Oklahoma City. There were many and various amusement devices in his place of business including the Hitler Ray Machine involved in this action.
This…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. WaiteSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
- Couch v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1941
- Ex Parte DavisCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1939
- McCord v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
- McDonald v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. SandferCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1951
- Group v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1951
- Hisel v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1953
- State v. StegallCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1953
- Prickett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.