Alexander v. State

1919 OK CR 145, 180 P. 393, 15 Okla. Crim. 604, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 118
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 30, 1919
DocketNo. A-3212.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1919 OK CR 145 (Alexander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. State, 1919 OK CR 145, 180 P. 393, 15 Okla. Crim. 604, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 118 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Ottawa county of a violation of the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and confinement for ninety daya in the county jail. To reverse the judgment he appealed by filing in this court on November 30, 1917, a petition in error with case-made.

His counsel of record suggest the death oE the plaintiff in error and have filed a motion to abate the proceeding.

In the case of Boyd v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 684, 108 Pac. 431, it is said:

*605 “In a criminal action, the sole purpose of the proceeding's is to enforce the criminal law and punish the person found guilty of a violation thereof. The personal representative of the deceased is not responsible for the alleged violation of the law by the defendant during his lifetime, and cannot be required to satisfy the judgment rendered against him. It is only the person adjudged guilty who,, can be punished, and a judgment cannot be enforced when the only subject-matter upon which it can operate has ceased to exist.”

And see United States v. Dunne, 173 Fed. 254, 97 C. ' C. A. 420, 19 Ann. Cas. 1145.

In a criminal action, the purpose of the proceeding being to punish the defendant in person, the action must necessarily abate upon his death. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged that the proceeding in the above entitled cause, and especially under the judgment* therein rendered, has abated, and that the county court of Ottawa county enter its appropriate order to that effect.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth (To Use, Ap.) v. Embody
17 A.2d 620 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Large v. Diercken
243 P. 862 (California Supreme Court, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1919 OK CR 145, 180 P. 393, 15 Okla. Crim. 604, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-oklacrimapp-1919.