Group v. State, A-11396
| Decision Date | 24 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11396,A-11396 |
| Parties | GROUP v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The common law doctrine requiring strict rules of pleading, as applied to indictments and informations, has been abrogated by statutes in Oklahoma, and the rule is followed that informations should receive a liberal construction, and are sufficient if from the language used it can be seen that the accused is charged with sufficient particularity as will enable him to prepare for trial and so defines and identifies the offense that if the accused is convicted or acquitted he will be able to plead jeopardy if he is again charged with the same offense.
2. The words 'knowingly' and 'willfully' are of similar import. The allegation in information that one 'willfully and unlawfully' committed the act is the same as that he 'knowingly' committed the act.
3. A rule of strict construction is to be applied to criminal statutes and courts should not extend them to embrace acts or conduct not clearly included within the prohibition of the statute.
4. Person cannot be convicted of crime unless act which is committed is within both letter and spirit of penal statute.
5. Statute, 21 O.S.1941 § 1501, making it unlawful for a person to make a false statement in writing, with intent that it shall be relied upon, respecting the financial condition of himself or any other person or corporation in whom he is interested, for the purpose of securing the delivery of personal property, the making of a loan or credit or the extension of credit, primarily applies to what is commonly known as a 'financial statement', wherein is purportedly set forth all of the assets and liabilities of the person or corporation involved.
6. Accused, as agent of business firm, drew a check on firm payable to creditor company for alleged past due account, which check upon presentation for payment was turned down because of insufficient funds to the credit of the payer. Under such facts accused could not be prosecuted for making false statement in writing pertaining to the financial condition of the debtor company where the check constituted the sole alleged false statement in writing concerning the purported financial condition of the firm.
Lee Gill, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The defendant, Harry V. Group, Jr., was charged by an information filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County with fraudulently securing credit; was tried to a jury who returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty but left the punishment to be fixed by the court; thereafter the defendant was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of $100 and costs; and has appealed.
Two assignments of error are presented. First, the information was fatally defective and the court erred in overruling the demurrer to such information. Second, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The information, omitting formal parts, reads:
'On the 11th day of February, A.D., 1949, in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Harry V. Group, Jr., whose more full and correct name is to your informant unknown, then and there being, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and wrongfully commit the crime of securing credit fraudulently in the manner and form as follows, to-wit:
'That is to say, the said defendant, in the county and state aforesaid, and on the day and year aforesaid, then and there being, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully, with the intent that the same should be relied upon, make certain statements and representations, in writing, as to the financial condition and ability to pay of the Public Furniture Mart, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a corporation duly organized and operating under the laws of Oklahoma, and executing a check drawn by said defendant for the said corporation on the Citizens State Bank, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, payable to Richards & Conover Hardware Company, wherein the defendant stated and represented that the said corporation had on deposit therein the sum of $325.60, by reason of which representation defendant secured the delivery, on credit, from Richards & Conover Hardware Company of certain personal property, to-wit: an Odin Gas Range, No. S 11301, of the approximate value of $150.00; that such written representation of financial condition was false and untrue, all of which he, the said defendant, then and there well knew; contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oklahoma.'
The defendant contends that this information is defective for the reason it failed to charge the purpose for which the check was given; secondly, for the reason that the information failed to charge that defendant 'knowingly' made a false statement in the check; third, that the information failed to charge that the check was false; fourth, the information erroneously charges 'representations' were made by the defendant; and fifth, it fails to set out in the information the check that was allegedly given by the accused.
The statute under which the defendant was charged provides:
'Any person who shall:
'3rd. * * *' (Unnecessary to copy as this section is not involved). 21 O.S.1941 § 1501.
This statute has been a part of our code of law since 1915, but there has been a scarcity of cases decided by this court construing it.
It is now well settled that the common law doctrine requiring strict rules of pleading, as applied to indictments and informations has been abrogated by statutes in Oklahoma and this court is committed to the rule that informations should receive a liberal construction, and the information is sufficient if, from the language used in the information, it can be seen that the accused is charged with sufficient particularity as will enable him to prepare for trial, and so defines and identifies the offense that if the accused is convicted or acquitted he will be able to plead jeopardy if he is again charged with the said offense. However, the rule above established does not mean that an information will be sustained that leaves out one of the essential allegations fixed by the statute as constituting the crime for which the accused is to stand trial.
Measured by the above rules it would appear that the information sufficiently complies with the law so as to inform the accused of the offense of which he is charged so as to enable him to prepare for trial and to enable him to plead jeopardy if he is again charged with the same offense. The information charges the making of a false statement in writing by executing a check in a certain amount upon an Oklahoma City bank in order to secure on credit a certain stove of the value of $150; and that such written representation of financial condition was false and untrue, which the defendant well knew at the time said statement in writing was made. Thus it will seem that all of the essential allegations under the first subdivision of the statute were included in the allegations of the information.
The purpose for which the written check was executed is set forth; the contention that the information failed to charge that defendant 'knowingly' made the false statement may not be sustained for the reason that the information charged that defendant well knew that the representation was false and untrue and further charged at the beginning that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...If any essential element is omitted, it cannot be supplied by intendment or implication or liberal construction. Group v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 401, 236 P.2d 997, 1000 (1951); State v. Sowards, 64 Okl.Cr. 430, 82 P.2d 324, 328 (1938). Such an omission renders the Information incapable of chargi......
-
Com. v. Greenberg
...the borrower to pay. A statement by the borrower that it is genuine plainly relates to his means and ability to pay. See Group v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 401, 236 P.2d 997; Commonwealth v. Boyd, 181 Ky. 382, 205 S.W. 390; Branham v. State, 96 Ga. 307, 22 S.E. The offense of larceny by false prete......
-
Plotner v. State
...If any essential element is omitted, it cannot be supplied by intendment or implication or liberal construction. Group v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 401, 236 P.2d 997, 1000 (1951); State v. Sowards, 64 Okl.Cr. 430, 82 P.2d 324, 328 (1938). Such an omission renders the Information incapable of chargi......
-
Wishon v. State
...clearly within the prohibition of the statute. Matthews v. Powers, Okl.Cr., 425 P.2d 479; Simpson v. State, 267 P.2d 1008; Group v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 401, 236 P.2d 997. To loosely construe a criminal statute creates the risk of making ex post facto law. With that consideration in mind, I wo......