Wortman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wortman v. State

1913 OK CR 124, 132 P. 358, 9 Okla. Crim. 440, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 155

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 24, 1913

DocketNo. A-1550.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1913 OK CR 124 (Wortman 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

Wortman v. State, 1913 OK CR 124, 132 P. 358, 9 Okla. Crim. 440, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 155 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in tbe superior court of Logan county on an information which charged:

“The said Sherman Wortman did then and there unlawfully, willfully and knowingly have’ the .possession of a quantity, to wit, eight pints, of an imitation and substitute of a fermented and malt liquor, the name of which is to affiant unknown, capable of being used as 'a beverage, contrary to,” etc.—

and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

Of the various errors assigned it is only necessary .to notice two, which are ■ in effect: First, the information is insufficient in that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense; second, that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.

Obviously the information is fatally defective. It is not sufficient to merely name the offense and charge a mere conclusion of law. The facts charged must show an "offense.

In Ex parte Hunnicut, 7 Okla. Cr. 213, 123 Pac. 179, it is said:

“Where an information or indictment merely charges a defendant with unlawfully handling any substitute for or imitation of .prohibited liquors, it would not charge an offense against the laws of the state of Oklahoma. Where an information or indictment charges the unlawful use of imitations of or substitutes for prohibited liquors, without going further and alleging facts which would bring them within the purpose of the law, such information or indictment simply charges that, in the opinion of the pleader, an offense has been committed. This would be contrary to the universal rule that legal accusations must allege facts, not opinions.”

Two >or three witnesses for the state testified that the stuff looked like beer. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that the officers came to his place and took eight *442 bottles of a liquid called “Tempo”; that it did not look like beer or taste or smell like beer, any more than soda pop; that it was not a substitute for beer, nor did he ever sell it for such. Samuel Garrest testified that it did not look like beer, * nor were there any hops or malt about it; that it “tastes a little like burnt sorghum molasses with water in it.” George Hannah, John Fallin, Fred- Winters, Lyman Ross, A. T. McMillan, and Charles Seton testified in effect that the liquid was not beer, nor an imitation of beer, and could deceive no one. There ivas no testimony in the case that this liquid contained any alcohol or was in any way intoxicating.

We are clearly of the opinion that the verdict is unwarranted by the evidence, and that the judgment of conviction, as a matter of law, is without support in the evidence.

The judgment of the superior court of Logan county is therefore reversed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and FURMAN, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in tbe superior court of Logan county on an information which charged:

“The said Sherman Wortman did then and there unlawfully, willfully and knowingly have’ the .possession of a quantity, to wit, eight pints, of an imitation and substitute of a fermented and malt liquor, the name of which is to affiant unknown, capable of being used as 'a beverage, contrary to,” etc.—

and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50.

Of the various errors assigned it is only necessary .to notice two, which are ■ in effect: First, the information is insufficient in that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense; second, that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.

Obviously the information is fatally defective. It is not sufficient to merely name the offense and charge a mere conclusion of law. The facts charged must show an "offense.

In Ex parte Hunnicut, 7 Okla. Cr. 213, 123 Pac. 179, it is said:

“Where an information or indictment merely charges a defendant with unlawfully handling any substitute for or imitation of .prohibited liquors, it would not charge an offense against the laws of the state of Oklahoma. Where an information or indictment charges the unlawful use of imitations of or substitutes for prohibited liquors, without going further and alleging facts which would bring them within the purpose of the law, such information or indictment simply charges that, in the opinion of the pleader, an offense has been committed. This would be contrary to the universal rule that legal accusations must allege facts, not opinions.”

Two >or three witnesses for the state testified that the stuff looked like beer. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that the officers came to his place and took eight *442 bottles of a liquid called “Tempo”; that it did not look like beer or taste or smell like beer, any more than soda pop; that it was not a substitute for beer, nor did he ever sell it for such. Samuel Garrest testified that it did not look like beer, * nor were there any hops or malt about it; that it “tastes a little like burnt sorghum molasses with water in it.” George Hannah, John Fallin, Fred- Winters, Lyman Ross, A. T. McMillan, and Charles Seton testified in effect that the liquid was not beer, nor an imitation of beer, and could deceive no one. There ivas no testimony in the case that this liquid contained any alcohol or was in any way intoxicating.

We are clearly of the opinion that the verdict is unwarranted by the evidence, and that the judgment of conviction, as a matter of law, is without support in the evidence.

The judgment of the superior court of Logan county is therefore reversed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and FURMAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 124, 132 P. 358, 9 Okla. Crim. 440, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wortman-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack