Edwards v. State

• Decision Date: 06 February 1911
• Citation: 113 P. 214,5 Okla.Crim. 20,1911 OK CR 23
• Parties: EDWARDS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

113 P. 214

5 Okla.Crim. 20, 1911 OK CR 23

EDWARDS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

February 6, 1911

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a defendant pleads to an indictment or information, and goes to trial, and for the first time objects to the information or indictment when an attempt is made to introduce testimony thereunder, the objection should be overruled, if by any intendment or presumption the indictment can be maintained.

For facts sufficient to sustain a conviction for maintaining a place where liquors are kept for sale, see opinion.

Error of the trial court in admitting improper evidence will become immaterial, where the legal and proper testimony in the case conclusively established the guilt of the defendant.

Appeal from Blaine County Court; C. E. Malcolm, Judge.

Fred Edwards was convicted for maintaining a place where prohibited liquors were kept for sale, and he appeals. Affirmed, with directions.

I. H Lookabaugh, for appellant.

Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

FURMAN P.J.

First. The appellant was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty, and did not offer any objection whatever to the information, until after he was put upon trial and the jury were impaneled and the county attorney attempted to introduce evidence on behalf of the state. He then objected to the introduction of testimony, upon the ground that the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense under the laws of Oklahoma. This objection was overruled by the court. In the case of White v. State, 4 Okl. Cr. 143, 111 P. 1010, this court held that, when an objection to an information or indictment was presented for the first time upon a motion to exclude testimony, said motion should be overruled, if by any intendment or presumption the information or indictment could be sustained. The White Case is decisive of this question. It is true that the information in this case is not quite as full as it might be; but the allegations are sufficient to inform the defendant as to the nature of the offense charged against him. The court therefore, did not err in overruling the objection made by counsel for the appellant.

Second. The state in this case proved by a great number of witnesses that they had purchased whisky from the defendant at the place kept by him, and one witness swore that he had seen as many as 10 or 12 barrels of empty whisky bottles at the defendant's place...