Alexander v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Alexander v. State

1973 OK CR 291, 512 P.2d 824, 1973 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 523

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 13, 1973

DocketNo. A-17903

StatusPublished

This text of 1973 OK CR 291 (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, 1973 OK CR 291, 512 P.2d 824, 1973 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 523 (Okla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, Altha Mae Alexander and Harold Delmer Ludington, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Procuring, Counseling or Assisting a Person to Lewdly Expose Herself in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1021(2). The punishment of each defendant was fixed at a fine of three thousand dollars ($3,000) and a term of imprisonment of two (2) years, with the sentence of imprisonment imposed against defendant Altha Mae Alexander being suspended.

This case arises out of the same incident set out fully in our opinion dated the 13th day of June 1973 and styled Haines v. State, 512 P.2d 820. In the Haines case this Court reversed the conviction of Susanne Marie Haines for indecent exposure with directions to dismiss.

As the conviction of the person allegedly counseled and assisted in the instant case has been heretofore reversed, it is the opinion of this Court that the conviction of defendants herein must necessarily be reversed. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the judgment is accordingly reversed with directions to dismiss.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, Altha Mae Alexander and Harold Delmer Ludington, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Procuring, Counseling or Assisting a Person to Lewdly Expose Herself in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1021(2). The punishment of each defendant was fixed at a fine of three thousand dollars ($3,000) and a term of imprisonment of two (2) years, with the sentence of imprisonment imposed against defendant Altha Mae Alexander being suspended.

This case arises out of the same incident set out fully in our opinion dated the 13th day of June 1973 and styled Haines v. State, 512 P.2d 820. In the Haines case this Court reversed the conviction of Susanne Marie Haines for indecent exposure with directions to dismiss.

As the conviction of the person allegedly counseled and assisted in the instant case has been heretofore reversed, it is the opinion of this Court that the conviction of defendants herein must necessarily be reversed. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the judgment is accordingly reversed with directions to dismiss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1973 OK CR 291, 512 P.2d 824, 1973 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-oklacrimapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack