Jenner v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | A--9814. |
| Parties | JENNER v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The burden is upon the defendant to show that the trial court abused his discretion in allowing an information to be amended as to form after the case has been called for trial or that such amendment materially prejudiced the defendant.
2. Record examined, and held, court did not abuse discretion in allowing information to be amended by striking certain allegations therein set forth.
3. Further held, evidence sufficient to sustain conviction under provisions of House Bill No. 125, chap. 15 art. 3, sec. 6, p. 10, Session Laws of 1939, 21 Okl.St.Ann. § 969.
Appeal from County Court, Choctaw County; T. W. Hunter, Judge.
Ralph K. Jenner was convicted of the offense of unlawful possession of a slot machine, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Robert H. Warren, of Hugo, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The defendant, Ralph K. Jenner, was charged by information in the County Court of Choctaw County with the offense of possession of a slot machine, a jury was waived, the defendant tried convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and he has appealed to this court.
No brief has been filed in this case, but the attorney for the defendant appeared before this court and argued that the evidence showed that the slot machine found in the defendant's possession was stuffed with paper so that it was not capable of being operated, and, therefore, its possession was not a violation of House Bill No. 125, chap 15, art. 3, sec. 6, p. 10, Session Laws of 1939, 21 Okl.St.Ann. § 969.
The same defendant has a similar case, Jenner v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 114 P.2d 958, in which similar questions are raised and which has been briefed; and we are treating the brief filed in that case in connection with the disposition of the assignments of error in this case.
The defendant seeks an interpretation of sec. 6 of House Bill No. 125, Acts of the Seventeenth Legislature, supra, which is as follows: "That it shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession any slot machine or punch board, or sell or solicit the sale, or take orders for the sale of, or lease or rent any slot machine or punch board in this State, and any person violating the provisions of this Section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty ($50.00) Dollars nor more than One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
The defendant and one of his employees at the Blue Moon Cafe, where the machine in question was seized by the officers, testified that the slot machine in question was stuffed with paper so that the mechanism could not work.
The officers who seized the machine testified that the slot machine was sitting in the front end of the cafe, and that there were a lot of people standing around the machine; but that they did not see any one playing the machine. That after the machine was brought to the sheriff's office, they pulled down on the trip from the back of the machine, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jackson v. State
-
Jenner v. State
...No. A-9814, Jenner v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 114 P.2d 956. The facts show that the same officers who seized the machine involved in case No. A-9814, supra, went to defendant's place of business on May 27, 1939, at 10 P.M. There was no machine on the premises at that time. At 2 A.M. the same ni......