Bowes v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1912
• Citation: 127 P. 883,8 Okla.Crim. 277,1912 OK CR 403
• Parties: BOWES v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

127 P. 883

8 Okla.Crim. 277, 1912 OK CR 403

BOWES v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

November 18, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

(a) If a witness has been summoned or served with a subp na to attend court and testify in any cause pending therein, any person who willfully prevents or dissuades such person from obeying such subp na is guilty of a felony.

(b) When a doubt exists as to whether an information or indictment charges a felony or misdemeanor, the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the offense charged should be held to be a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who maliciously, by any deceit or fraud, or by the use of any threat, menace, or violence, intentionally prevents any party to an action or proceeding from procuring the attendance of a witness therein, when said witness has not been served or summoned with a subp na, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) The rule of common law that penal statutes are to be strictly construed is not in force in this state; but penal statutes must be construed liberally according to the fair import of their terms, for the purpose of effecting the objects for which they were enacted, and to promote justice.

(e) It is not necessary for an indictment or information to use the words in the statute in defining an offense, but other words conveying the same meaning may be used.

(f) An indictment or information is sufficient if the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.

The court has the power to render a judgment providing for the imprisonment of a defendant until a fine assessed against him for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law of the state has been paid.

(a) All persons who are concerned in the commission of an offense are guilty as "principals," and should be prosecuted and convicted as such.

(b) Where two or more persons engage in a conspiracy to commit an offense, any statement made by one of such conspirators in pursuance of such conspiracy, and before the completion thereof, is competent evidence against his co-conspirators although they may not have been present when such statements were made. This is equally true as to any acts done by co-conspirators.

Appeal from Custer County Court; J. C. McKnight, Judge.

T. C Bowes was convicted of suppressing evidence, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $250, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The information in this case is as follows:

"State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff, v. T. C. Bowes, Defendant.

In the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma, now comes E. J. Lindley, county attorney in and for the county and state aforesaid, and gives the court to know and be informed that heretofore, and for a long time prior to the information herein, one P. S. Brooks was, and still is, a material witness for the state in an action pending in this court wherein the state of Oklahoma is plaintiff and T. C. Bowes is defendant, charging the said T. C. Bowes with the crime of selling intoxicating liquor within the state of Oklahoma to the said P. S. Brooks; that on the 26th day of April, 1911 the 8th day of May, 1911, was duly set as the day of the trial of the said action, and that thereafter, on the 3d day of May, 1911, the day of trial was continued by agreement to the 18th day of May, 1911, to which day the said P. S. Brooks was duly subp naed in due course of law to appear and give evidence for the state in said action; that the said T. C. Bowes, late of Custer county, Oklahoma, on or about the 27th day of April, 1911, at and within said county and state, well knowing the premises, and knowing that the said P. S. Brooks would be subp naed to attend as a witness in said action as aforesaid, and devising to obstruct the course of justice in said county court of Custer county, Oklahoma, and maliciously intending to prevent the attendance of the said P. S. Brooks as aforesaid, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and designedly and unjustly use means, two wit, hired, employed, and induced the said P. S. Brooks, by giving him certain money and paying his expenses, to leave the jurisdiction of the said court, thereby to hinder and prevent the said P. S. Brooks from appearing before the said court when and where the said T. C. Bowes was held for trial, contrary to the form of the statutes in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Oklahoma.

E. J. Lindley, County Attorney.

State of Oklahoma, County of Custer--ss.:

Personally appeared P. S. Brooks, who first being duly sworn on his oath says that the statement contained in the above information is true.

P. S. Brooks.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of May, 1911.

J. C. McKnight, County Judge. [ Seal.]"

Statement of the Evidence.

W. F. Armstrong testified for the state that he was clerk of the county court of Custer county, Okl.; that in the months of April and May, 1911, a criminal prosecution was pending in said court against appellant, T. C. Bowes, for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law; and that P. S. Brooks was a witness for the state in said cause.

P. S Brooks testified that he resided in Custer county, Okl.; that he was the prosecuting witness against appellant, Bowes, in a case pending in the county court of Custer county, wherein appellant was charged with violating the prohibitory liquor law; that in March, 1911, appellant came to an old house, about a quarter of a mile from the residence of the father of witness; that one Joe Winters came to the house of the father of witness in a buggy; and that witness went with the said Winters to the old house where appellant was and there saw appellant. Witness then testified as follows: "Q. I believe you stated, Mr. Brooks, that the defendant, Bowes, came out of the house? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you get out of the buggy? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did Winters get out of the buggy? A. I think so. Q. Did you have any conversation with the defendant at that time? A. I did. Q. Tell the jury what he said. A. He said he came up to see me, and he wanted to see if there was any way of getting shut of my evidence in a case he had pending in court, and he made me a proposition. Q. Go ahead and tell the jury all about it. A. He said he would pay a man to cultivate my crop, and would pay my expenses if I would get out of the way of the court until his trial came up. He said maybe if, when he went to trial, then he could beat his case, or something to that effect. Q. When was that? A. It was about the 20th day of March, as near as I can remember. Q. Did you talk to him very long? A. I don't suppose we were there over 30 minutes. Q. Where did you go after that, Slim? A. I went up to my father's house. Q. Where did the defendant go? A. They got in the buggy, and I supposed they went home. Q. Who do you mean by 'they'? A. Winters and Bowes. Q. Well, now, was this the only time you talked to the defendant up there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the defendant make any other remark at that time? A. He told me that he would have Joe Shive to watch the docket when his case was set for trial, and he would let me know before I got subp naed. Q. Did he say anything to Winters when he drove up there? A. I don't know. Q. Did Winters say anything to him? A. Not that I remember of; but he may have. Q. State whether or not they had anything to drink. A. Yes, sir. (Objected to as immaterial. By the Court: He has answered.) Q. Was there any conversation had about the drinking? A. No, sir; not that I remember of. Q. Now tell the jury, Mr. Brooks, when and where you saw the defendant next. A. I saw him in Clinton next. Q. In Clinton? Do you remember the time? A. On the 27th day of April, I think. Q. Were you in Clinton on the 27th day of April? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were you doing in Clinton on that date? A. I went to leave the country, to get on the train. Q. Did you go for your pay down there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, how did you happen to go on the 27th of April, instead of some other day? A. Well, Joe Winters came to my house on the 25th of April-- (Objected to any statement on the part of Joe Winters, unless made in the presence of the defendant, or the defendant is in some way connected to it, as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, or unless it is shown that Joe Winters is authorized to represent the defendant. By the Court: Overruled. By the Defendant: Give us an exception). A. Joe Winters came to my house on the 25th of April-- (Object to anything that Joe Winters said. By the Court: Overruled. By the Defendant: Exceptions.) Q. Did you have a conversation with Winters on that occasion? A. Yes, sir; and on the 27th I went to Clinton. Q. Now, tell the jury what occurred in Clinton on the 27th of April. First, what time did you get down there? A. It was in the afternoon; something like 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. What did you do down there on the 27th, Mr. Brooks? A. I stayed there that evening and that night. Q. Did you see the defendant there that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was with him? A. I don't remember that any one was with him. I seen him around in the town; just seen him walking around over the town. Q. Did you have any conversation with the defendant about--on the afternoon of the 27th of April? A. I couldn't say that I did. Q. The 27th of April? A. I might have spoke to him. That night I had a conversation with him. Q. Tell the jury all the circumstances of that conversation and what it was. A. Well, that night, about 7:30 that evening, I was aiming to go away on that 8 o'clock train East when-- Do you want me to tell what he said? A. Yes; what he said, and...