Armstrong v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Armstrong v. State

1925 OK CR 533, 240 P. 1115, 32 Okla. Crim. 223, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 552

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 5, 1925

DocketNo. A-5187.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 533 (Armstrong 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

Armstrong v. State, 1925 OK CR 533, 240 P. 1115, 32 Okla. Crim. 223, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 552 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BESSEY, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, defendant be *224 low, was convicted of disturbing tbe peace. By verdict of the jury his punishment was fixed at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $100. The defendant claims that the information was insufficient, in that it contained no averment that the loud, obscene, vulgar, and threatening language said to have been used was addressed to some particular person or persons. The offending words used, as set out in the information and amply supported by the proof, were obscene and repulsive in the extreme. From the statements contained in the information, it was easy to understand to whom they were alleged to have been addressed, and that the language used was of a nature calculated to arouse the anger of those addressed, and were designed to provoke an assault or breach of the peace, as defined in section 2005, Comp. Stat. 1921. The information also stated an offense under section 2004, Id. This was an aggravated case, not such as would warrant a modification of the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

BESSEY, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, defendant be *224 low, was convicted of disturbing tbe peace. By verdict of the jury his punishment was fixed at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $100. The defendant claims that the information was insufficient, in that it contained no averment that the loud, obscene, vulgar, and threatening language said to have been used was addressed to some particular person or persons. The offending words used, as set out in the information and amply supported by the proof, were obscene and repulsive in the extreme. From the statements contained in the information, it was easy to understand to whom they were alleged to have been addressed, and that the language used was of a nature calculated to arouse the anger of those addressed, and were designed to provoke an assault or breach of the peace, as defined in section 2005, Comp. Stat. 1921. The information also stated an offense under section 2004, Id. This was an aggravated case, not such as would warrant a modification of the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 533, 240 P. 1115, 32 Okla. Crim. 223, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.