Gault v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1929
• Docket Number: A-6431.
• Citation: 274 P. 687,42 Okla.Crim. 89
• Parties: GAULT v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

274 P. 687

42 Okla.Crim. 89

GAULT v. STATE.

No. A-6431.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

February 16, 1929

Syllabus by the Court.

Words used in a statute to define a public offense need not be strictly pursued in an information; words of similar import may be used. The word "drunk" is a synonym of the word "intoxicated," and an information alleging in substance that defendant did drive a motor vehicle on the public highway while drunk sufficiently alleges the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Sentence of one year in the penitentiary on conviction under charge of driving an automobile while intoxicated, in violation of Laws 1923, c. 16, § 3, held not excessive.

Appeal from District Court, Dewey County; T P. Clay, Judge.

John Gault was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and he appeals. Affirmed.

James H. Mathers, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error

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

EDWARDS P.J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Dewey county on a charge of driving an automobile while intoxicated and his punishment fixed at a term of one year in the state penitentiary.

The evidence for the state is that, on the date charged defendant was intoxicated and drove a Star touring car about the streets of the town of Leedy at a dangerous speed. A deputy sheriff testified that he drove along the main street of the town at a speed of between 40 and 50 miles per hour and, when he tried to stop him, defendant attempted to run him down with the car. Defendant denied that he was intoxicated, although he testified he had taken a drink or two in the morning. An examination of the record convinces us that the jury was fully warranted in its verdict finding defendant guilty

It is first argued that the information is insufficient. It charges defendant with driving a car while "drunk." The statute under which defendant is prosecuted, section 3, Senate Bill No. 26 (chapter 16), Laws of 1923, provides that it is unlawful for any person "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" to drive a motor vehicle on the highways of the state. Defendant contends that the word "drunk" is not equivalent to the words "under the influence of intoxicating liquor."

Section 2561, Comp. Stat. 1921, is: "The words used in an indictment or information must be construed in their usual acceptation, in common language, except words and phrases defined by law, which are to be construed according to their legal meaning."

Among other definitions, Webster defines the word "drunk" as follows: "1. Intoxicated with or as with strong drink; under the influence of an intoxicant, esp. an alcoholic liquor, so that the use of the faculties is materially...