Case ID: okla-crim_17/html/0712-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IRA SPENCER et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-3395.
    Opinion Filed April 15, 1920.
    (188 Pac. 894.)
    
    Appeal from County Court, Dewey County; \Y.’A. Carlton, Judge.
    Ira Spencer and lioy Spencer were jointly tried and convicted of a violation of the prohibitory liquor laws, and they appeal.
    Judgments mouiiied and atrirmeu as to each.
    C. IC Cary ami Mlltón Clark, for plaintiffs in error.
    S. I’. Eroding. Atiy. (jen., and W. C. Hal). Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Dewey county, wherein (he defendants, lra Spencer and Roy Spencer, were convicted' of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and eacli sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and to serve a term of 90 days’ imprisonment in the county jail, and to pay the costs of the prosecution. From these judgments of conviction, each Inis appealed to this court, and assign several errors as grounds for reversal. We ltave carefully examined the record and find the evidence on the part of the state amply sufficient to sustain the judgment as to each defendant. Neither defendant introduced any evidence in defense. We find, however, that certain irrelevant evidence was admitted, and had a meritorious defense been interposed to the charge, the admission of such evidence would have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendants. But under section 0005, Revised Laws 1910, this court is not permitted to reverse a judgment of conviction on the ground of the improper admission of evidence, unless it appears that the error complained of has probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice,*or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right. This court is convinced that no miscarriage of justice resulted by the conviction of the defendants under the evidence in this case, nor were they deprived of any constitutional or statutory right to their prejudice, and that the admission of such evidence docs not warrant a reversal of the judgments, in file absence of any denial of guilt on file part of either defendant. It is the conclusion of the court, however, under power conferred by section 6003, Revised laws 1910, that substantial justice warrants the modification of the judgments to provide a tine of $800 against each defendant, and imprisonment in the county. jail for a period of 30 days against each defendant, and the payment of the costs of the prosecution, and that the judgments as so modified he affirmed. Tt is so-ordered.