Hodge v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 1931 |
| Docket Number | A-8050. |
| Citation | 3 P.2d 252,52 Okla.Crim. 141 |
| Parties | HODGE v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The indictment or information must charge the defendant with but one offense. In this state, the defendant may not be placed upon trial for two offenses at the same time.
Where it is clear from the information, the evidence, the verdict and judgment that the defendant was called upon to defend against two separate and distinct offenses charged against him, over his repeated objections and exceptions, this court will not permit a conviction under such circumstances to stand unreversed, for the reason that such a conviction does not afford the defendant that fair and impartial trial according to the forms of law guaranteed to him by the Constitution and statutes of this state.
Appeal from District Court, Grant County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.
Jay Hodge was convicted of receiving money knowing it to have been stolen, and he appeals.
Reversed.
W. H C. Taylor, of Medford, for plaintiff in error.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Edward Crossland, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of obtaining and receiving $50 from Cloris Smith and Dallas Palmer, knowing at the time he received the money that the same was stolen property and not the property of the said Cloris Smith and Dallas Palmer, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary, from which judgment the defendant has appealed.
The testimony on behalf of the state tended to show that a store belonging to W. F. Fuss, at Wakita, had been burglarized and some money stolen; Cloris Smith and Dallas Palmer burglarized the store and secured some ninety-odd dollars in money; a day or two after the store was burglarized the defendant in this case, with Smith and Palmer and other parties went to a dance at Manchester some distance from Wakita. Palmer testified that at Manchester Cloris Smith was spending some money and the defendant asked where Smith got the money, and Palmer replied that he might have gotten it at the Fuss store, or words to that effect. The testimony further shows by Smith and Palmer, who burglarized the store, that, after they returned from the dance at Manchester, they together with the defendant decided to drive to Enid for the purpose of buying some whisky, and on the road from Wakita to Enid Smith and Palmer each turned over to the defendant $25. They say they turned the money over to the defendant in Grant county, and the defendant admits receiving the money, but says it was near the city of Enid. The testimony shows that the parties visited Enid but did not buy any whisky, and that the defendant did not return home with Smith and Palmer.
The defendant denies any knowledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis v. State
...at the same time.' See Lawrence v. State, 39 Okl.Cr. 229, 264 P. 214. See also Cochran v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 379, 111 P. 974; Hodge v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 141, 3 P.2d 252; Thoreson v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 128, 100 P.2d 896. Cole v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 396, 262 P. 712, 713, in the body of the opinion......