Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma/Frazier v. State

Frazier v. State

1953 OK CR 1, 267 P.2d 155, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 14, 1953
DocketA-11880
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 1953 OK CR 1 (Frazier 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
Frazier v. State, 1953 OK CR 1, 267 P.2d 155, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305 (Okla. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinions

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error William H. Frazier, defendant below, was charged by complaint in the county court of Creek county, Oklahoma, with the commission of a misdemeanor on December 3, 1952 on U. S. Highway No. 66, five miles north of Sapulpa in the aforesaid county. The complaint in substance alleged that the said defendant was driving an overloaded truck on said highway in violation of the provisions of Title 47, § 116.1, O.S.1951. The defendant waived a jury; the case was tried by the judge who found the defendant guilty, fixed his punishment at a fine of $50 and costs, and judgment and sentence was entered accordingly.

The defendant attacked the sufficiency of the original complaint by motion to quash for insufficiency of facts to constitute an offense. The motion was overruled. Leave was granted to amend. The charging part of the information as amended reads in substance as follows, to wit (The amendment is italicized.):

“That the said defendant, in the County and State aforesaid, on the .day and year aforesaid, did, unlawfully, wilfully and wrongfully drive and operate a certain vehicle, to-wit: One 1952 White Truck, bearing 1952 Oklahoma License No. 409-981, on U. S. Highway 66, five miles north of the .City of Sapulpa, said vehicle being overweight, towit, 1020 pounds; that said vehicle was a semi-trailer with a group of axles wherein the distance in feet between the extremes, between cmy group of axles, did' not exceed 7 feet, and section 116.1, sub-section 4-b, presents a schedule showing that the maximum load in pounds carried on any group of axles not greater than 7 feet distance in feet between the extremes of any group of axles,- will be 32,000 pounds. The said vehicle carried a weight of 33,020 pounds.”

To this complaint as amended, the defendant interposed a demurrer on the ground of insufficiency to state a cause of action, which was overruled, with an exception. The pertinent part of the statute, under which this action was brought, Title 47, § 116.1, O.S.1951, reads as follows:

“Except as otherwise provided by this Act; it shall be unlawful and constitute a misdemeanor for any person t.o drive, operate, or move, or for the owner to cause or permit to be driven or moved upon any road or highway within this State, whether paved or otherwise, any vehicle or vehicles or combination of vehicles of a size or weight exceeding the limitations stated in this Act, or any vehicles which are not constructed or equipped as required by this Act, or to transport over any road or highway within this State, whether paved or otherwise, any load or loads, exceeding the weights or dimensions prescribed by this Act. * *
[158]*158“(a) No vehicle or combination, of vehicles shall have a gross weight in excess of sixty thousand (60,000) pounds; no vehicle, or combination of vehicles shall have a greater weight than six hundred (600) pounds per inch width of tire upon any wheel concentrated upon the surface of the highway using high pressure tires, and a greater weight than six hundred fifty (650) pounds per inch width of tire upon any wheel concentrated-upon the surface of the highway using low pressure tires, nor any -axle load in excess of eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds. An axle load shall be defined as the total on all wheels whose centers may be included between two (2) parallel transverse vertical planes forty inches (40") apart. .
“(b) No group of axles shall carry á load in pounds in excess of the value given in the following tables corresponding to the distance in feet between the extreme axles of the group, measured longitudinally to the nearest foot:
Distance in Feet between the Extremes of any Group of Axles
Maximum Load in Pounds Carried . on any Group of Axles
32,000
' 32,000
32,000 VO
32,000 N
* [etc., up to] * *
60,000.” 0\ cO

The foregoing schedule is identically the same in both the Act of 1947 and the Act of 1949.

The gist of the offense as alleged in the amended complaint is that the defendant’s semi-trailer truck was overloaded on its group of axles to the extent of 1,020 pounds. We are of the opinion the amended complaint is sufficient to apprise the defendant of what he was called upon to meet and good against both the motion and the demurrer. It has been repeatedly held that a charge in a complaint, information or indictment is sufficient where it apprises an accused of the particular offense or crime with which he is charged and enables him to prepare his defense and to protect himself from jeopardy against another prosecution on the same state of facts. Douglas v. State, 57 Okl.Cr. 154, 47 P.2d 215. The true test of the sufficiency of the information is whether it alleges every element óf the offense intended .'to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet. Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21, 189 P.2d 424, 190 P.2d 838. So measured the complaint herein was sufficient.

The evidence in support of the complaint is not in dispute. In substance the state’s evidence was that the vehicle in question was composed of two parts, a truck-tractor composed of two axles, a front steering axle, and a 'back driving axle and a semitrailer, at the rear of which is a group of two axles. The front of the semi-trailer was fastened oh what is known as a fifth wheel with the weight thereof being supported by the rear driving and carrying axle of the truck-tractor. The rear axles of the semi-trailer consisted of two axles with multiple wheels, which arrangement is commonly called tandem axles, All together there are four axles, the steering axle and the three carrying axles, including the driving axle as a carrying axle.

The Act herein in question was approved on May 31, 1949. A graphic chart prepared and distributed by the Department of Public Safety as a part of the departmental regulation under the law symbolizing the provision of the statute (not contained in the record herewith- presented but a matter of judicial notice, the date of the promulgation of said symbols and their dissemination was commenced shortly after June 1949, as reflected on the original engineer’s tracing) shows the weight restrictions of vehicle that may be lawfully operated on the highways of Oklahoma. These departments had a right under the statute to make a rule chart setting forth the symbols illustrative of the -provisions of said statute. The type of vehicle herein involved is pictured in said chart as set out ■below within the enclosed rectangles 1, 2 and 3:

[159]

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

Related

Parker v. State
1996 OK CR 19 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1996)
Miller v. State
1992 OK CR 8 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1992)
Linscome v. State
584 P.2d 1349 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1978)
Berryhill v. State
1977 OK CR 269 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1977)
Opinion No. 77-180 (1977) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1977
State v. Cutnose
532 P.2d 896 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1974)
Opinion No. 73-249 (1973) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1973
Wing v. State
1961 OK CR 8 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1961)
White v. Ames Mining Company
349 P.2d 550 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1960)
Frazier v. State
1953 OK CR 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1953 OK CR 1, 267 P.2d 155, 1953 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-state-oklacrimapp-1953.