Case Name: JOHN A. TUCKER v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-07-12
Citations: 7 Okla. Crim. 634
Docket Number: No. A-1470
Parties: JOHN A. TUCKER v. STATE.
Judges: ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 634–644

Head Matter:
JOHN A. TUCKER v. STATE.
No. A-1470.
Opinion Filed July 12, 1912.
Rehearing Opinion Filed August 21, 1912.
1. COURTS — Appeal—Written Opinions — Misdemeanors. By an express provision of the statutes of Oklahoma, this court is not required to prepare written opinions in misdemeanor eases pending before it, but is permitted to render written opinions in misdemeanor cases when in its judgment the public interests may be subserved thereby.
2 INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Unlawful Sale — Husband and Wife —Evidence. On a trial where an information charges the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, and the evidence shows that the sale charged in the information was made by the wife of the defendant at his home, it is competent to introduce testimony of other sales of intoxicating liquor made by the wife at his home, and that large quantities of liquor were kept at the home of the defendant, for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine whether or not the wife was acting for defendant, and that defendant was concerned in the particular sale for which he was being prosecuted, and that such sale constituted a part of a plan or system of the defendant for the sale of liquor.
3. SAME — Witnesses—-Failure to Testify — Presumption — Appeal. Where a defendant is being prosecuted for the sale of intoxicating liquor and the state’s witnesses testify that such sale was made by his wife at his home, she is a competent witness in his behalf; and if he does not place her upon the witness stand, or account for his failure to do so, such failure will be strongly corroborative of the truhtfulness of the state’s testimony; and if there is other testimony in the record connecting the defendant with such sale, a verdict of conviction will not be disturbed on appeal.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from, Superior Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge.
John A. Tucker was convicted of violating the prohibitory-law, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Bond & Melton and Barefoot & Carmichael, for plaintiff in error.
Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, for the State.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff in error was tried and con- . victed at the September, 1911, term of the superior court of Grady county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a term of thirty days and a fine of fifty dollars. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no material error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.