Chamberlain v. State

• Decision Date: 20 April 1929
• Docket Number: A-6537. [a1]
• Citation: 276 P. 507,42 Okla.Crim. 410
• Parties: CHAMBERLAIN v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

276 P. 507

42 Okla.Crim. 410

CHAMBERLAIN v. STATE.

No. A-6537. ^[a1]

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 20, 1929

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a defendant goes to trial and for the first time objects to the information when the state attempts to introduce testimony thereunder, the objection should be overruled if by any reasonable construction, intendment, or presumption, the information can be sustained.

An information is sufficient if it charges an offense in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the right of the case.

Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; C. C. Christison, Judge.

Bert Chamberlain was convicted of the crime of pointing a gun, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Oscar C. Simpson, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

CHAPPELL J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county of the crime of pointing a gun, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to imprisonment in the county jail for three months.

The first error complained of by the defendant is that the information is insufficient to state a crime against the defendant. The charging part of the information reads as follows:

"* * * That heretofore, to-wit, on the 2nd day of May, A. D 1926, in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Bert Chamberlain whose more full and correct name is to your informant unknown, then and there being, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and wrongfully commit the crime of pointing a weapon at others, in manner and form as follows to-wit:

That is to say, the said defendant, in the County and state aforesaid and on the day and year aforesaid, then and there being, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and wrongfully point a shotgun, to-wit: A twelve gauge pump shotgun at several persons assembled in a room at the home of Ray Thompson, using threats to do violence on divers persons therein. * * *"

The sufficiency of this information was first questioned in the trial court by objection to the introduction of evidence on the part of the state, after the jury had been duly impaneled and the first witness sworn and placed upon the stand. The statute under which this information was drawn reads as follows:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to point any pistol or any other deadly weapon, whether loaded or not, at any person or persons, either in anger or otherwise." Comp. St. 1921, § 1999.

The contention of the defendant is that the foregoing information fails to charge an offense because it fails to name the person or persons at whom the defendant pointed the shotgun....