Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Okla. Crim. 460

104 P.2d 262

Epps v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1940-06-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed, nor argument presented, this court will examine the evidence and ascertain if it supports the verdict, and will make an examination of the information, instructions excepted to, and the judgment, and if no material error is apparent, the judgment will be affirmed.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Freels v. State, Edd v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1940-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1963

15 state decisions

60194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The information in this case charged the defendant M. T. Epps with the crime of “communicating venereal disease”, “to wit: syphilis”, to Ruth Epps on or about August 6, 1938. The defendant, on his trial before a jury, was convicted. Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled on December 3, 1938. Thereupon the court sentenced the defendant to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary at McAlester in accordance with the verdict of the jury.

¶2 On June 2, 1939, an appeal from the judgment was taken by filing in this court a petition in error with case- *461 made and proper proof of notices. No briefs have been filed and no appearance for oral argument made.

¶3 Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no brief in support of the petition in error is submitted, and no appearance for oral argument made, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. This court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors. If no fundamental error appears, the judgment will be affirmed.

¶4 We have examined the record and find that the information is sufficient to charge the offense of communicating a venereal disease. The evidence, though conflicting, is amply sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence. On the record before us we have discovered no error which would warrant a reversal of the judgment, and it appears that the defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.

¶5 The judgment of the lower court is accordingly in all things affirmed.

/69/oklacrim/460 · .json · Public domain