Knopp v. State

• Decision Date: 17 April 1936
• Docket Number: A-9010.
• Parties: KNOPP v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

56 P.2d 1193

59 Okla.Crim. 143

KNOPP v. STATE.

No. A-9010.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 17, 1936

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An information charging a misdemeanor may be amended during the course of the trial, where the same can be done without prejudice to the defendant.

2. It is unlawful to cause or permit deleterious substances to flow into or enter any of the streams of this state. In order to establish the offense, it is not necessary that the state allege or prove such deleterious substance prevents the habitation or propagation of fish in such stream.

Appeal from County Court, Pontotoc County; John Boyce McKeel, Judge.

Buddy Knopp was convicted of pollution of a stream, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Harrell & Kerr and J. Wm. Crawford, all of Ada, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

EDWARDS Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Pontotoc county of contaminating a stream by placing, allowing, and causing to be run into its waters oil, cement cuttings, slush, and waste from an oil well, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200.

The information is based on section 4782, Okl.Stat.1931, which is: "No person shall deposit, place, throw, or permit to be deposited placed or thrown, any lime, dynamite, poison drug, sawdust, crude oil or other deleterious substance, in any of the streams, lakes or ponds of this state, and any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year."

The first contention is that there is a fatal variance between the information and the proof, in that the information alleges the well to be located "* * * in the Northwest of Southeast of Section 30-2-7 and due or almost due south of A. J. Harden house * * *." The proof is that the well is in the southwest quarter of the southeast, etc.; but further it is shown that the well is approximately the same distance and direction from the Harden house as alleged. When this incorrect description was discovered, the state admitted the error and asked and was granted leave to amend the information accordingly. No showing by affidavit for a postponement was made. There is evidence that the slush pits of this well were...