Bondurant v. State

• Citation: 171 P. 488,14 Okla.Crim. 388,1918 OK CR 36
• Decision Date: 23 March 1918
• Docket Number: A-2886.
• Parties: BONDURANT v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

171 P. 488

14 Okla.Crim. 388, 1918 OK CR 36

BONDURANT v. STATE.

No. A-2886.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

March 23, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

On a trial upon a charge that the defendant did have possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibitory liquor law, where evidence of the general reputation of the defendant's place of business was relied on to show the intent, it was error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to reputation evidence, and the purpose for which such evidence was admitted.

Appeal from County Court, Grady County; R. E. Davenport, Judge.

H. C Bondurant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed.

Holding & Herr, of Chickasha, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General and R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOYLE P.J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction upon an information charging H. C. Bondurant did have in his possession intoxicating liquors, to wit, whisky, for the purpose of disposing of the same in violation of the prohibitory law of the state. The verdict, omitting formal parts, was as follows:

"That the jury drawn, impaneled, and sworn in the above-entitled cause do upon our oaths find the defendant, H C. Bondurant, guilty as charged in the information herein and assess his punishment at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days. We, the jury, recommend that the judge eliminate the jail sentence. [Signed by five jurors.]"

To the receiving of the verdict the record shows that the defendant excepts "for the reason that said verdict is insufficient in form and too indefinite and uncertain as to the penalty assessed." Overruled, and exception allowed.

The evidence shows that Bondurant, the defendant, conducted a lunch counter on Chickasha avenue between Fourth and Fifth streets, Chickasha; that Hodge Bailey, sheriff of Grady county, and two deputies, Rucker and Castleman, went to the defendant's place of business to execute a search warrant, and they found about one-half quart of whisky behind a cook stove in the back room, and found two small glasses there. These officers and witness Marshall, a policeman, each testified that the defendant's place of business was a place of public resort, and that they knew the general reputation of the defendant's place of business as to being a place where intoxicating...