Case Name: CLIFFORD RENTIE v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1916-02-05
Citations: 12 Okla. Crim. 252
Docket Number: No. A-2452
Parties: CLIFFORD RENTIE v. STATE.
Judges: FURMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
CLIFFORD RENTIE v. STATE.
No. A-2452.
Opinion Filed February 5, 1916.
(154 Pac. 502.)
HOMICIDE' — Appeal—Verdict—-Evidence. Becord and evidence examined and held sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault with intent to kill, and that no reversible error was committed on the trial.
Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; Wade S. Stand field, Judge.
Clifford Rentie, convicted, of assault with intent to kill, appeals.
Affirmed.
B. M. Carter and C. L. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.,
R. MlMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DOYLE, P. J.
Clifford Rentie, plaintiff in error, was convicted of assault with intent to kill T. L. Dunigan, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of three years. From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on May 4, 1915, a petition in error with case-made.
The errors assigned are:
1. That the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
2. That the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence and is based wholly upon passion and prejudice.
3. That the court erred in giving instruction No. 6 to the jury.
It appears that the plaintiff in error, a negro, assaulted the prosecuting witness Dunigan with a knife, inflicting nine wounds, one of which penetrated the pleural cavity:
No briefs have been filed and when the case was called for final submission no appearance was made in behalf of the plaintiff 'in error. The case was thereupon submitted on the record. We have carefully examined the record and find that it is exceptionally free of error, and we find no reason to think that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. No objection was made or exception taken to the instructions given by the court.
Having reviewed the errors assigned and finding no substantial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
FURMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ., concur.