Simmons v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Simmons v. State

1909 OK CR 72, 101 P. 1102, 2 Okla. Crim. 446, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 3, 1909

DocketNo. 98.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1909 OK CR 72 (Simmons 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

Simmons v. State, 1909 OK CR 72, 101 P. 1102, 2 Okla. Crim. 446, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154 (Okla. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKER, Judge,

(after stating the facts as above). The petition in error contains the following assignments: That the court erred in overruling the demurrer of accused, in the instructions to the jury, and in overruling the motion of accused for a new trial. Having carefully examined the record in this case, this court is of opinion that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the information, for the reason that the information 'does not state the name of the person to whom the alleged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor was made, and does not aver that the name of such person is unknown to the prosecution, and therefore not set forth. The information charges that the' sale was made to “divers persons.” This form of pleading is bad, for the obvious reason that the accused is not properly advised of the charge against him with such particularity as to enable him to *448 prepare and make an intelligent defense. This proposition is fully discussed and decided by this court in Weston v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 407, 98 Pac. 360, Banks v. State, 101 Pac. 610, Fletcher v. State, 101 Pac. 599, Weber v. State, 101 Pac. 355, and Mitchell v. State, (the latter four eases reported in this volume) 101 Pac. 1100. The doctrine clearly established by this 'court is this: An indictment or information, charging a single sale of intoxicating liquor, must allege the name of the person or persons to whom such sale was made. If the names of such persons are unknown, then this fact must be stated. The trial court in the case at bar therefore committed prejudicial error in not sustaining the demurrer of the accused, for the reason that the information does not give the names of the “divers persons” to whom sales were made. The charge in the case is the same (verbatim) as the charge in the case of Mitchell v. State, tried in the same court, and decided by this court at the present term, in which all the questions raised by the record in the case at bar are fully passed upon and determined. This court, therefore, deems if unnecessary to do more than refer to the Mitchell Case, supra, in disposing of this case.

For the reasons herein stated, and. the additional reasons set forth in said Mitchell Case, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and remanded.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.

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

BAKER, Judge,

(after stating the facts as above). The petition in error contains the following assignments: That the court erred in overruling the demurrer of accused, in the instructions to the jury, and in overruling the motion of accused for a new trial. Having carefully examined the record in this case, this court is of opinion that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the information, for the reason that the information 'does not state the name of the person to whom the alleged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor was made, and does not aver that the name of such person is unknown to the prosecution, and therefore not set forth. The information charges that the' sale was made to “divers persons.” This form of pleading is bad, for the obvious reason that the accused is not properly advised of the charge against him with such particularity as to enable him to *448 prepare and make an intelligent defense. This proposition is fully discussed and decided by this court in Weston v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 407, 98 Pac. 360, Banks v. State, 101 Pac. 610, Fletcher v. State, 101 Pac. 599, Weber v. State, 101 Pac. 355, and Mitchell v. State, (the latter four eases reported in this volume) 101 Pac. 1100. The doctrine clearly established by this 'court is this: An indictment or information, charging a single sale of intoxicating liquor, must allege the name of the person or persons to whom such sale was made. If the names of such persons are unknown, then this fact must be stated. The trial court in the case at bar therefore committed prejudicial error in not sustaining the demurrer of the accused, for the reason that the information does not give the names of the “divers persons” to whom sales were made. The charge in the case is the same (verbatim) as the charge in the case of Mitchell v. State, tried in the same court, and decided by this court at the present term, in which all the questions raised by the record in the case at bar are fully passed upon and determined. This court, therefore, deems if unnecessary to do more than refer to the Mitchell Case, supra, in disposing of this case.

For the reasons herein stated, and. the additional reasons set forth in said Mitchell Case, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and remanded.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1909 OK CR 72, 101 P. 1102, 2 Okla. Crim. 446, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-state-oklacrimapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack