Crooms v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Crooms v. State

1911 OK CR 122, 115 P. 610, 5 Okla. Crim. 576, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 23, 1911

DocketNo. A-599.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1911 OK CR 122 (Crooms 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

Crooms v. State, 1911 OK CR 122, 115 P. 610, 5 Okla. Crim. 576, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The information in this ease is as follows:

“In the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma, now comes J. W. Jones, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Atoka county, state of Oklahoma, and gives the county court of Atoka county and state of Oklahoma to know and be informed that Aaron Crooms did, in Atoka county, and in the state of Oklahoma, on or about the 8th day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine, and anterior to the presentment hereof, commit the crime of being in the possession of intoxicating liquors for an unlawful purpose in tiie manner and form as follows, to wit: That the said Aaron Grooms did then and there have in his possession twenty-four pints, more or less, of intoxicating liquor, namely, whisky, for an unlawful purpose, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state.”

Appellant moved the court to set aside the information, upon the ground that it was indefinite and uncertain, and did not inform appellant of the particulars of the offense charged against him. This motion was by the court overruled. The specific objec *577 tion urged against the information is that it simply alleges in general terms that appellant had in his possession intoxicating liquor for an unlawful purpose, but nowhere states facts sufficient to bring such unlawful purpose within the letter of the law. The statute makes it an offense for any person to have the possession of any such liquors with the intent to violate toy of the provisions of the prohibitory law. In the case of State v. Feeback, 3 Okla. Cr. 508, 107 Pac. 442, this court said:

“To say that a man intends to use the liquor in violating the law does not'charge any offense, for the reason that it is too indefinite.”

The information in this ease should have gone further, and have alleged the intention on the part of the appellant to violate the provisions of article 3, c. 69, of the Session Laws of 1907 and 1908. The motion to set aside the information should have been sustained.’

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The information in this ease is as follows:

“In the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma, now comes J. W. Jones, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Atoka county, state of Oklahoma, and gives the county court of Atoka county and state of Oklahoma to know and be informed that Aaron Crooms did, in Atoka county, and in the state of Oklahoma, on or about the 8th day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine, and anterior to the presentment hereof, commit the crime of being in the possession of intoxicating liquors for an unlawful purpose in tiie manner and form as follows, to wit: That the said Aaron Grooms did then and there have in his possession twenty-four pints, more or less, of intoxicating liquor, namely, whisky, for an unlawful purpose, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state.”

Appellant moved the court to set aside the information, upon the ground that it was indefinite and uncertain, and did not inform appellant of the particulars of the offense charged against him. This motion was by the court overruled. The specific objec *577 tion urged against the information is that it simply alleges in general terms that appellant had in his possession intoxicating liquor for an unlawful purpose, but nowhere states facts sufficient to bring such unlawful purpose within the letter of the law. The statute makes it an offense for any person to have the possession of any such liquors with the intent to violate toy of the provisions of the prohibitory law. In the case of State v. Feeback, 3 Okla. Cr. 508, 107 Pac. 442, this court said:

“To say that a man intends to use the liquor in violating the law does not'charge any offense, for the reason that it is too indefinite.”

The information in this ease should have gone further, and have alleged the intention on the part of the appellant to violate the provisions of article 3, c. 69, of the Session Laws of 1907 and 1908. The motion to set aside the information should have been sustained.’

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 122, 115 P. 610, 5 Okla. Crim. 576, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crooms-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack