Goeppinger v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. A--13561,A--13561 |
| Citation | 414 P.2d 313 |
| Parties | James P. GOEPPINGER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Tulsa Municipal Criminal Court has concurrent jurisdiction in misdemeanor violations of statute prohibiting being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 11--902.
2. Record of municipal criminal court conviction for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor must reflect, by proper evidence or court findings, that offense occurred within corporate limits of municipality.
3. Municipal judge may take judicial notice of city ordinances, but Court of Criminal Appeals will not do so.
4. Testimony of city police officers in municipal criminal court prosecution that offense of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor occurred on certain streets in the city of Tulsa, did not satisfy requirement that record reflect the offense occurred within corporate limits, for lack of proper showing of ordinance fixing limits. 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 493; 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 11--902.
Appeal from Municipal Criminal Court of City of Tulsa, Tulsa County; Ralph Adkisson, Judge.
James P. Goeppinger was convicted of the offense of being in the actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Reversed.
Ed Parks, John D. Harris, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Jack Swidensky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by James P. Goeppinger, hereinafter referred to as defendant, who was charged by information in the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa with the offense of being, on December 13, 1963, unlawfully, wrongfully, wilfully and knowingly in actual physical control of a 1961 Buick, two door motor vehicle, bearing license Tag No. ZC 4555, in the 5100 block east 30th Street, and the 5100 block east 28th Street, while said defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
A jury was waived and the case was tried before the court, who found defendant guilty and fixed his punishment at ten days in the county jail, and a $50 fine, and costs.
Timely appeal from the judgment and sentence of the court has been duly filed in this Court.
In his petition in error, defendant sets out nine errors, but argues them under five propositions. Several of the propositions raised by defendant have some merit, but for the purpose of deciding this case, only one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goomda v. City of Oklahoma City, A--17572
...it on appeal. See: Wormuth v. City of Tulsa, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1158; Simmons v. Oklahoma City, Okl.Cr., 429 P.2d 530; Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313; and Sawyer v. State, Okl.Cr., 395 P.2d This Court has searched the record in vain for some indication of compliance with the abov......
-
Blanton v. City of Oklahoma City, M-77-81
...that no maps, ordinances or testimony were transmitted to this Court to prove the venue question. As authority he cites Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313 (1966), which says in Syllabus number "Testimony of city police officers in municipal criminal court prosecution that offense of......
-
Whisenhunt v. State, A--14806
...venue in conformity with the rule enunciated in Sawyer v. State, Okl.Cr., 395 P.2d 589, and cited with approval in Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313. In order to eliminate the unnecessary expense of new trials in all future cases, we reiterate the rule there '(T)he Municipal Crimin......