Case Name: A. C. QUICK v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1931-05-09
Citations: 51 Okla. Crim. 121
Docket Number: No. A-7882
Parties: A. C. QUICK v. STATE.
Judges: EDWARDS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
A. C. QUICK v. STATE.
No. A-7882.
Opinion Filed May 9, 1931.
Rehearing Denied May 29, 1931.
(299 Pac. 242.)
L. A. Pelley, for plaintiff in error.
Tbe Attorney General, for tbe State.

Opinion:
CHAPPELL, J.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in tbe county court of Jackson county of tbe unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and bis punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for 45 days.
Defendant contends first that tbe court erred in its instructions to tbe jury.
An examination of these instructions reveals that they are not carefully drawn and are not as comprehensive as they might have been, but when considered in tbe light of tbe conclusive evidence of tbe guilt of tbe defendant, be could not have been prejudiced thereby.
This court has said, in substance, that tbe giving of erroneous instructions is not always ground for reversal. Thompson v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 51, 117 Pac. 216; Grans- den v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 417, 158 Pac. 157; West v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 312, 164 Pac. 327, L. R. A. 1917E, 1129; Cloud v. State, 41 Okla. Cr. 395, 273 Pac. 1012.
Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, but this contention is without merit.
The other errors complained of by defendant have been carefully considered and are without substantial merit.
For the reasons stated, the cause is affirmed.
EDWARDS, J., concurs.