Wychoff v. State

1911 OK CR 264, 116 P. 355, 6 Okla. Crim. 122, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 306
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 3, 1911
DocketNo. A-769.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1911 OK CR 264 (Wychoff 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
Wychoff v. State, 1911 OK CR 264, 116 P. 355, 6 Okla. Crim. 122, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 306 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

RICHARDSON, Special, Judge.

This was a prosecution for selling liquor to a minor, instituted by information filed in the

*123 district court of Okfuskee county. The cause was tried in that court, and plaintiff in error was found guilty as charged and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one year. He filed a motion for a new trial and-in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled; and he appeals.

In the case of John Nowakowski v. State, post, 116 Pac. 351, just decided, it was held that the act under which this prosecution was instituted and carried on is unconstitutional and void; that the offense denounced by the act is still only a misdemeanor; and that the district court therefore has no jurisdiction of the offense.

This proceeding was instituted by information and not by indictment. The district court has no power to receive, file, or take cognizance of an information charging a misdemeanor, and no power to transfer such information to the county court; the provision for transfers being limited to indictments for misdemeanors returned by the grand jury into the district court. Article 2, c. 10, Snyder’s Comp. Laws 1909. It follows therefore that this prosecution has never been legally instituted, and must be dismissed. This will not prevent the county attorney from filing an information against plaintiff in error for this offense in the county court.

The judgment of the lower court will therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the same.

FURMAN, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur; ARMSTRONG, J., disqualified and not sitting.

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

Related

Armstrong v. State
1926 OK CR 259 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1926)
Nowlin v. State
1912 OK CR 284 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)
Ex Parte Bud Wright
1911 OK CR 267 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
Nelson v. State
1911 OK CR 366 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
Ex Parte Garland Brown
1911 OK CR 266 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
Evans v. State
1911 OK CR 537 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
Kester v. State
116 P. 356 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1911 OK CR 264, 116 P. 355, 6 Okla. Crim. 122, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wychoff-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.