Copperfield v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | A-6043. |
| Parties | COPPERFIELD v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
An information which alleges that the accused did wrongfully unlawfully, and feloniously, by fraud and stealth, take steal, and drive away one automobile, the property of another, with the unlawful and felonious intent then and there to deprive the owner permanently thereof and to convert to the taker's own use, sufficiently charges the crime of stealing an automobile, as defined by section 2120, Comp. St 1921.
Where it appears that a defendant is in such a state of intoxication as to render the mind incapable of forming or entertaining the specific intent essential to constitute the offense charged, a verdict of not guilty should be returned. Whether or not such a state of intoxication existed is a question of fact for the jury, under proper instructions.
Appeal from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge.
Walter Copperfield was convicted of stealing an automobile, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Holcombe & Lohman, of Pawhuska, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. F Short, Atty. Gen., and J. Berry King, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Osage county on a charge of stealing an automobile, and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary.
The evidence shows that the car in question was the property of A. H. Gates, and that on the evening of June 18, 1925, the car was parked in front of Gates' drug store in Hominy, about 9 p. m. Mr. Gates was called to the front of the store and discovered this defendant in his car in the act of backing it out. He ran towards the car and called to defendant and tried to stop him, but defendant backed out and drove away. Gates immediately got into another car, and, with the witness Honeycutt, started in pursuit. About a mile and a half from Hominy they overtook defendant, drove in front of him, and forced him to stop, but as soon as Gates and Honeycutt stopped the car in which they were riding, defendant drove Gates' car around them and went on. Gates again tried to stop him, but he paid no attention and drove on. About 2 1/2 miles farther, Gates found his car in the ditch abandoned by defendant. Complaint was filed against defendant the following morning, but he was not apprehended until four days later.
There is no contention on the part of defendant that he did not take the car as alleged, but he contends that at the time of the taking by reason of intoxication he was incapable of forming a criminal intent. He relies for reversal upon two principal propositions: First, the insufficiency of the information; second, error in excluding testimony offered by defendant.
Considering the first assignment, the information alleges that defendant "* * * did then and there wrongfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by fraud and stealth, take, steal, and drive away one Hudson speedster automobile, * * * the property of A. H. Gates, with the unlawful and felonious intent then and there of him, the said Walter Copperfield, to deprive the owner thereof and to convert said property to his, the taker's, own use, contrary," etc.
It is insisted that this charge is insufficient for the reason that it fails to allege that the taking was without the consent of the owner, citing Jackson v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 525 139 P. 324. This contention cannot be sustained. It is not essential that the information directly aver that the taking was without the consent of the owner, but words of similar import may be used. Certainly the allegation that the taking was wrongful, unlawful, and felonious, by fraud and stealth, and with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial