State v. Williams, 201 P. 834 (Idaho 1921). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Williams, 201 P. 834 (Idaho 1921). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
LAVON WILLIAMS and DEWEY ARNOLD
Idaho Supreme Court.
Jul 1, 1921.
201 P. 834
1921 Ida. LEXIS 81
Miller & Ricks, for Appellants., Roy L. Black, Attorney General, and Jas. L. Boone, Assistant, for Respondent.
Budge, Dunn, Lee, McCarthy, Rice.
Published

Lead Opinion

MCCARTHY, J.

In this ease the facts and questions of law are substantially the same as those presented to this court in the ease of State v. Henry Ricks and Edward Levine, ante, p. 122, 201 Pac. 827. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of conviction herein is affirmed.

Rice, C. J., and Dunn, J., concur.

Concurrence

BUDGE, J.,

concurs in the conclusions reached, for reasons given in the case of State v. Ricks and Levine, supra.

Lee, J., dissents. (November 1, 1921.)

Rehearing

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

MCCARTHY, J.

The questions raised by the petition for rehearing in this ease are the same as those raised by the petition for rehearing in the ease of State v. Henry Ricks and Edward Levine, ante, p. 122, 201 Pac. 827. Upon the authority of that decision, the petition for rehearing, of the above-named appellants and each of them, is denied.

Dunn, J., concurs.

Concurrence

BUDGE, J.

I adhere to my views heretofore expressed and therefore concur.

Rice, C. J., and Lee, J., dissent.