From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Foster

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Oct 28, 1919
184 P. 530 (Okla. 1919)

Summary

expressing doubt as to jurors' ability to consider objectively voluntariness of confession

Summary of this case from State v. Tindle

Opinion

No. 10645

Opinion Filed October 28, 1919.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal and Error — Briefs — Necessity of Filing.

Where a cause has been regularly assigned for submission and plaintiff in error fails to file brief or to offer any excuse for not doing so, it will be presumed the appeal has been abandoned and the same will be dismissed.

Error from District Court, Creek County; M.L. Bozarth, Judge.

Mandamus by the State on the relation of the Board of County Commissioners of Creek County against P.O. Foster, Clerk, and others. Judgment for defendants, and relator brings error. Dismissed.

Earl Foster, County Attorney of Creek County, for plaintiffs in error.

Ernest B. Hughes, for defendants in error.


This cause was advanced on motion of the county attorney and assigned for submission. Plaintiff in error has failed to file brief, as required by rule 7 of this court, or to offer any excuse for not doing so.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.


Summaries of

State v. Foster

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Oct 28, 1919
184 P. 530 (Okla. 1919)

expressing doubt as to jurors' ability to consider objectively voluntariness of confession

Summary of this case from State v. Tindle
Case details for

State v. Foster

Case Details

Full title:STATE ex rel. COMMISSIONERS OF CREEK COUNTY v. FOSTER et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Oct 28, 1919

Citations

184 P. 530 (Okla. 1919)
76 Okla. 227

Citing Cases

State v. Benavidez

It is settled law in this state that an unlawful inducement which renders a subsequent confession involuntary…

State v. Tindle

State v. Lindemuth. The question of voluntariness then becomes one uniquely suited, under proper instruction,…