Wilden v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wilden v. State

1971 OK CR 475, 491 P.2d 303

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 15, 1971

DocketNo. A-16332

StatusPublished

This text of 1971 OK CR 475 (Wilden 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

Wilden v. State, 1971 OK CR 475, 491 P.2d 303 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Chester T. Wilden, 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 $25.00 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 with, and as provided by Title 12 O.S. § 493, or set forth verbatim by the Municipal [304]*304Court or court trying the case in 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.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Chester T. Wilden, 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 $25.00 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 with, and as provided by Title 12 O.S. § 493, or set forth verbatim by the Municipal [304]*304Court or court trying the case in 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 475, 491 P.2d 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilden-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack