Clark v. State
Decision Date | 10 June 1930 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 19377 |
Citation | 1930 OK 289,144 Okla. 7,289 P. 313 |
Parties | CLARK v. STATE. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Bastards--Bastardy Proceeding--Requisites of Complaint.
A bastardy proceeding, under article 3, ch. 70, secs. 8059-8069, Comp. Stats. 1921, is a civil action, and the allegations of the initial pleading of the plaintiff 'must be so definite and certain as to advise the defendant of "the precise nature of the charge" so that he may advisedly and intelligently prepare his defense. Ratzlaff v. State, 102 Okla. 263, 229 P. 278.
2. Same--Complaint Held Subject to Motion to Make More Definite and Certain.
In a bastardy proceeding, defendant filed his motion to require the complaint to be made more definite and certain so as to allege the time and place at which it was claimed the acts of sexual intercourse, resulting in pregnancy, took place; motion was by the trial court overruled; held error.
3. Same--Defensive Evidence of Mother's Illicit Relation With Other Men.
In a bastardy proceeding, evidence is admissible to show that the mother had sexual intercourse with other men at about the time the child was begotten, but evidence tending to show illicit connection with other men must be confined to a period within which it would have been possible, in the course of nature, for the child to be the result of such intercourse.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from County Court, Tillman County; W. D. Scott, Judge.
Bastardy proceedings by the State against Carl Clark. From a judgment of guilty, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Mounts & Chamberlin, for plaintiff in error.
Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., and J. H. Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
¶1 This is a bastardy proceeding brought against Carl Clark in the county court of Tillman county. The trial was to a jury, resulting in a verdict of guilty. Judgment thereon was rendered against defendant, requiring payment of $ 200 to the mother of the child to cover expenses incident to childbirth, and, in addition thereto, $ 10 per month for the support of the child. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals to this court.
¶2 It is assigned as error that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to make the complaint more definite and certain and erred in overruling his demurrer thereto. Complaint alleges that one Lelah Stout was the mother of the child; that she was a resident of Tillman county; and that defendant was the father of the child. The complaint is sufficient as against a general demurrer. Libby v. State, 42 Okla. 603, 142 P. 406; Ratzlaff v. State, 102 Okla. 263, 229 P. 278; Maisch v. State, 128 Okla. 226, 262 P. 203; Burnham v. State, 130 Okla. 221, 266 P. 781; Ratzlaff v. State, 122 Okla. 263, 249 P. 934.
¶3 We think, however, defendant's motion to make more definite and certain should have been sustained. The motion was that the state be required to set out the time and place at which it is claimed the acts of sexual intercourse, which resulted in pregnancy, took place. In the case of Ratzlaff v. State, 102 Okla. 263, 229 P. 278, it was held error to overrule a motion of this character, and in discussing the matter, in the body of the opinion, at page 264, the court says:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Harris
...support of this contention the defendant relies upon the following cases: ¶7 Anderson v. State, 42 Okla. 151, 140 P. 1142; Clark v. State, 144 Okla. 7, 289 P. 313; Ratzlaff v. State, 102 Okla. 264, 229 P. 279. Each of these cases was a proceeding in bastardy and they are distinguishable fro......
- Clark v. State