Boyle v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Boyle v. State

1971 OK CR 476, 491 P.2d 304

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 15, 1971

DocketNo. A-16333

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 476 (Boyle 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

Boyle v. State, 1971 OK CR 476, 491 P.2d 304 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Joseph Boyle, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in a non-jury trial in the Municipal Court of the City of Tulsa for the offense of Engaging in the Business of Repairing Mechanical Equipment Without Securing a License as required by ordinance. His punishment was fixed at a $50.00 fine, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We need only to observe that the Record before this Court does not reflect the municipal ordinance. We have uniformly held that the Court of Criminal Appeals will not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances, but that the ordinance, or ordinances, must be reflected in the Record, either by way of introduction of evidence in the trial court in accordance [305]*305with, and as provided by Title 12 O.S. § 493, or set forth verbatim by the Municipal Court or court trying the case de novo, during trial or in its findings, and judgment rendered, or the wording must have been agreed to by the parties in stipulation entered in the Record during the trial. Wormuth v. City of Tulsa, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1158.

We further observe that the defendant filed his brief before this Court on February 18, 1971, and that the City of Tulsa has failed to respond. The judgment and sentence is accordingly reversed with instructions to dismiss.

BRETT, J., concurs.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Joseph Boyle, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in a non-jury trial in the Municipal Court of the City of Tulsa for the offense of Engaging in the Business of Repairing Mechanical Equipment Without Securing a License as required by ordinance. His punishment was fixed at a $50.00 fine, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We need only to observe that the Record before this Court does not reflect the municipal ordinance. We have uniformly held that the Court of Criminal Appeals will not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances, but that the ordinance, or ordinances, must be reflected in the Record, either by way of introduction of evidence in the trial court in accordance [305]*305with, and as provided by Title 12 O.S. § 493, or set forth verbatim by the Municipal Court or court trying the case de novo, during trial or in its findings, and judgment rendered, or the wording must have been agreed to by the parties in stipulation entered in the Record during the trial. Wormuth v. City of Tulsa, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1158.

We further observe that the defendant filed his brief before this Court on February 18, 1971, and that the City of Tulsa has failed to respond. The judgment and sentence is accordingly reversed with instructions to dismiss.

BRETT, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 476, 491 P.2d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyle-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack