Armstrong v. State

Decision Date05 July 1930
Docket NumberA-7374.
Citation289 P. 1115,48 Okla.Crim. 146
PartiesARMSTRONG v. STATE.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

The information is sufficient when the act charged as an offense is clearly and distinctly set forth, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.

The information in this case stated sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the charge he was expected to meet, and the demurrer of the defendant was properly overruled.

Record examined, and evidence contained therein held sufficient to sustain the judgment.

Appeal from District Court, Choctaw County; Earl Welch, Judge.

James Wesley Armstrong was convicted of second degree manslaughter and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Howe & Douglass, of Hugo, for plaintiff in error.

J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

DAVENPORT J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant was by information charged with the crime of murder, was tried and convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentenced to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary; from which judgment and sentence the defendant has appealed.

The substance of the testimony on behalf of the state is that on the night of the homicide, the 8th of July, 1928, Ernest Ball, Turner Lawrence, Buster King, and the deceased attended a supper and dance at the home of the defendant's father, and remained there until some time between one o'clock a. m., and daylight, when they left the home of the defendant's father on their way to their respective homes, and got within a half mile of the home of the deceased when Buster King asked them to stop and talk a while; they got off their horses and turned them loose and sat down on the north side of the road, which at that point ran east and west, and while sitting there Ernest Ball, Turner Lawrence, and John Maynard were struck by an automobile.

The testimony further shows the defendant, accompanied by Ruth Crooks, Sammy Fulsom, and Bertha Crooks, left the place where the dance was going on after one o'clock A. M., drove several miles beyond the place where the killing took place, turned their car and started back toward the home of the Crooks girls; Ruth Crooks rode in Sammy Fulsom's lap during their journey, and Bertha sat between the defendant, who was driving the car, and Sammy Fulsom; Bertha Crooks had never driven a car, and the defendant was trying to teach her to drive; the defendant had been helping her keep the car in the road and stopped the car when necessary; the defendant knew Bertha Crooks did not know how to handle the car; that as they returned from their drive to take the Crooks girls home they came to where the boys were, and ran the car over the body of John Maynard, crushing him, from which injuries he died early Sunday morning.

There was some testimony to show that before they struck the boys they had struck a horse near where they ran over the boys; one of the Crooks girls says the car struck something and she fell out of the car, that she got up and caught up with the car and got back in the car without it stopping, and she did not see what the car struck; the defendant took the girls home and went on home and went to bed. The defendant admits attending the dance, and leaving about one o'clock and driving several miles beyond where the deceased was injured; he admits he was teaching Bertha Crooks to drive the car, that she did not know how to handle the car; the defendant says at the time of the accident he was asleep and had been asleep for some time before the car hit the boys. Bertha and Ruth Crooks both testify that the defendant was asleep at the time the car struck the deceased, that they drove on near their home when they got out and went back to the place where the accident occurred; the Crooks girls saying the defendant and Sammy Fulsom drove the car on away from the place where they got out.

The testimony further shows that at the time the defendant was arrested by the officers that he was leaving his home and appeared to be in a drunken or dazed condition. The testimony in several instances is conflicting, but on the main points as to their being at the dance, and starting with the girls home in the car, and as to the deceased and his companions attending the dance, and sitting on the road, having gotten off their horses on the highway, and the car driven by the defendant or one of the girls, whom the proof shows did not know how to drive the car, striking the boys and injuring the deceased, John Maynard, from the effects of which he died a short while afterwards, there is little conflict.

The defendant has assigned fourteen errors alleged to have been committed by the court in the trial of his case. The first assignment of error we will discuss is the third assignment of the defendant; that the court committed reversible error in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the information. The first paragraph of the demurrer is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT