Brashears v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | A-6089. |
| Citation | 259 P. 665,38 Okla.Crim. 175 |
| Parties | BRASHEARS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a defendant for the first time challenges an information by an objection to the introduction of testimony, the objection should be overruled if by any intendment, inference, or presumption the information can be sustained.
Only those questions preserved in a motion for a new trial will be considered on appeal, unless jurisdictional or of a fundamental character.
Where the evidence, although conflicting, reasonably supports the verdict, in the absence of unusual circumstances the judgment rendered thereon will not be reversed by this court for insufficiency.
A variance in a criminal case is an essential difference between the accusation and the proof. A variance is not material unless it is such as might mislead the defense or expose a defendant to being put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In prosecution for forgery of deed under Comp. St. 1921, § 2095 information held sufficient on objection to introduction of evidence thereunder on ground that it did not allege substance of deed charged to be forged or plead copy thereof or allege that deed was delivered.
Evidence held to sustain conviction for second degree forgery in procuring signature to deed under Comp. St. 1921, § 2095.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Luther James, Judge.
B. E Brashears and Walter Fulsome were convicted of forgery in the second degree, and they appeal. Affirmed.
E. G. Wilson and S.E. Dunn, both of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
Geo. F. Short, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the district court of Tulsa county on a charge of forgery in the second degree, and were each sentencd to serve a term of 3 1/2 years in the state penitentiary.
The prosecution is based on section 2095, Comp. Stat. 1921, which is as follows:
"Any person who, by false representation, artifice or deceit, procures from another his signature to any instrument, the false making of which would be forgery, and which the party signing would not have executed had he known the facts and effect of the instrument, is guilty of forgery in the second degree."
The charging part of the information is:
"* * * That B. E. Brashears and Walter Fulsome and each of them, on the 11th day of June, A. D. 1924, in Tulsa county, state of Oklahoma, and within the jurisdiction of this court, did unlawfully, willfully, wrongfully, and feloniously, by means of artifice and deceit, procure the signature of another, to wit, one Ellis Rogers to a certain instrument in writing, purporting to be a warranty deed, dated June 11, 1924, between Ellis Rogers party of the first part and Sarah Shelbun and E. I. Saddler, party of the second part, and purporting to transfer and convey for the consideration of $1, and other good and valuable consideration, certain real estate in Mayes county, state of Oklahoma, to wit, S.W. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 and the S.W. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 and lots 6 of section 34, township 20 north, range 19 east, the record title to which said land was then and there held and owned by the said Ellis Rogers in the manner and form as follows, to wit: That said defendants, and each of them exhibited to the said Ellis Rogers an oil and gas lease covering the lands above described and procured the consent of said Ellis Rogers to attach his signature to said oil and gas lease, and by artifice and deceit caused to be placed immediately under said purported oil and gas lease, a warranty deed as above set out purporting to transfer and convey the land above described to said Sarah Shelbun and E. I. Saddler, and did then and thereby represent to the said Ellis Rogers that he was signing an oil and gas lease, when in truth and in fact said defendants, and each of them by said fraud, artifice, and deceit substituted said warranty deed for said oil and gas lease and caused and procured the said Ellis Rogers to affix his signature to said warranty deed, and which said signature he (the said Ellis Rogers) would not have affixed to said deed if he had known the facts and effect of said instrument, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial