Cline v. State
| Citation | 130 P. 510,9 Okla.Crim. 40,1913 OK CR 71 |
| Parties | CLINE ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1913 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
When typewritten briefs are filed in this court, they should be so prepared that they may be read and understood by the court.
(a) The common-law doctrine of a strict construction of penal statutes has no place in the criminal jurisprudence of Oklahoma; but, on the contrary, such statutes must be liberally construed, and the fair import of their provisions must be accorded them, with a view to effect the objects for which they were enacted and to promote justice.
(b) As to whether or not a congregation of persons constitutes a religious meeting assembled for religious worship is always a question of fact to be determined by the jury from the testimony in each case and the instructions of the court.
(c) A "religious meeting" is an assemblage of people met for the purpose of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme Being, or to perform religious services in recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience, it matters not the faith with respect to the Deity entertained by the persons so assembled.
(d) The crowning glory of American freedom is absolute religious liberty and the unquestioned and untrammeled right of each person to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without let or hindrance from any person or any source whatever.
(e) The law affords equal protection to the religious views, rights and forms of worship of all denominations, all classes, and all sects, and does not undertake to state of what they shall consist, or how such services shall be conducted.
(f) The celebration of the birth of Christ is a "religious service" in commemoration of an event upon which the hopes and destinies of all Christendom depends.
Appeal from Pottawatomie County Court; Ross F. Lockridge, Judge.
Joe Cline and Ellis Cline were convicted in the county court of Pottawatomie county, charged with the offense of disturbing religious worship. The punishment of appellant Joe Cline was assessed at a fine of $50 and 10 days confinement in the county jail. The punishment of appellant Ellis Cline was assessed at a fine of $25 and 10 days confinement in the county jail. Appealed. Affirmed.
The evidence in this case may be stated in narrative form, as follows: On the evening of the 24th day of December, 1910 there was a Christmas tree celebration in a public school building in Pottawatomie county, which building was used both as a schoolhouse and also as a churchhouse. The meeting in question was held under the auspices of the Methodist denomination. The exercises were to consist of distributing presents from a Christmas tree, recitations by Sunday school scholars, and an address or sermon upon the life of Christ by Rev. Mr. Cross, the Methodist preacher in charge of that station. The meeting was opened by singing. The schoolroom was about 30X50 feet, and was full of men, women, and children. While Mr. Cross was speaking with reference to the birth of Christ and asking the Sunday school children some questions, some one in the rear of the room threw a pecan at the preacher, and great confusion was created by a number of young men in the rear of the building. Mr. Cross asked the question as to where Jesus was born. Some one among the young men in the rear of the building answered, "at Waco." It appears that Waco was the name of a store in this neighborhood. So much noise was made by the young men in the rear of the building, and the meeting was so much disturbed thereat, that Mr. Cross was not able to conclude his remarks, and was compelled to take his seat. Several persons were requested to go back in the rear of the building and get the names of those who were creating the disturbance. As a result of this a fight ensued, in which the appellant Joe Cline participated, and the appellant Ellis Cline used the most shocking profanity. The testimony shows that great confusion resulted from this disturbance, in which both of the appellants participated.
A. J Carlton and Baldwin & Pitman, all of Tecumseh, for appellants.
Charles West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
FURMAN J. (after stating the facts as above).
First. The briefs filed in behalf of appellants in this cause are so badly typewritten, indistinct, blotted, and blurred as to be almost unintelligible. For the purpose of saving expense to their clients, we are perfectly willing to permit lawyers to file typewritten briefs; but these briefs should be so prepared that they may be readily read and understood by the court. It is an abuse of the privilege to file typewritten briefs to prepare them in such manner that they cannot be easily read. We have had so much trouble with indistinct typewritten briefs that we are seriously considering the proposition of requiring all briefs to be printed, and will be forced to do so if counsel do not exercise more care in the future in this matter. We will either have to adopt this rule, or we will be forced to strike from the records all briefs which are not clearly typewritten and treat the cases in which they are filed as having been submitted without briefs.
Second. After spending nearly two days in trying to find out from the indistinct briefs filed just what the contentions of counsel for appellants are, we think that their position may be summed up in the proposition that the meeting at which the disturbance complained of occurred was simply a Christmas festival; and that, as such, it did not constitute a religious meeting, within the meaning of our statute. Counsel for appellants have cited authorities from a number of states supporting this view; but they have overlooked the fact that in each of the states from whose opinions they quote the common-law doctrine of a strict construction of penal statutes prevails, and that the opinions upon which they rely are based upon this doctrine. An entirely different rule in the construction of penal statutes exists in Oklahoma. Section 2027, Comp. Laws 1909, is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial