Jewell v. Territory Oklahoma
Decision Date | 13 February 1896 |
Citation | 1896 OK 16,43 P. 1075,4 Okla. 53 |
Parties | OLIVER P. JEWELL v. THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Error from the District Court of Woodward County.
¶0 1. INDICTMENT FOR MURDER--Insufficient, When. An indictment which fails to charge that the homicidal act was perpetrated with a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of some other person, does not charge the crime of murder as defined in the first subdivision of § 2078, Statutes of Oklahoma, 1893.
2. SAME--Common Law Charge--Not Sufficient. The ordinary common law charge of murder in an indictment is not sufficient to support a verdict and judgment for murder under the first subdivision of § 2078, defining murder.
3. SAME. The charge that the shot which caused the death of the deceased was fired "feloniously, wilfully, and with premeditated malice aforethought," is not equivalent to the allegation that the fatal shot was fired "with the premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed."
4. SAME--Must Fully Charge the Crime. An indictment must fully charge the crime and set out all that the law requires to be proved. And want of averment cannot be supplied by an independent finding of fact not alleged in the indictment.
5. MURDER--Material Elements to Constitute. The material element necessary to constitute murder, under the first subdivision, is the "premeditated design to effect death," and must be alleged and proved as an independent fact, otherwise the killing is only manslaughter, unless it comes within one of the other definitions of murder as contained in the second and third subdivision.
6. HOMICIDE--Law Defined--Proof. Homicide is murder under the second subdivision "when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to others, and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual." And the homicidal act must be one imminently dangerous to more than the the person killed. The class of persons intended to be embraced in this subdivision are such as where the acts by which the homicide is committed are directed against no particular person, but against a number of persons generally, or where the act is imminently dangerous to a number of persons but directed against none, and in either case, without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular person. Proof of the felonious killing of a particular person by an assault directed specifically at the person killed, will not support a judgment for murder under said second subdivision.
7. SAME. Homicide is murder under the third subdivision "when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the commission of any felony." And this means some felony as defined by statute other than that of the killing itself.
8. SAME. All other classes of homicide are manslaughter, unless justifiable or excusable.
9. CONVICTION UNDER SUFFICIENT INDICTMENT. The indictment charges that the prisoner unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, and with premeditated malice aforethought, fired the fatal shot which resulted in the death of the deceased. The verdict was guilty of murder, and sentence of death. Held, the indictment is not sufficient to charge murder under subdivision one, defining murder; for the reason that it is not alleged that the fatal shot was fired with the premeditated design to effect the death of the deceased, and that the verdict and judgment can not be sustained under the second subdivision: for the reason that it does not appear that the homicidal act was dangerous to any person other than the deceased, or that it was perpetrated with a general deadly intent, regardless of human life.
10. COMMON LAW RULE CHANGED BY STATUTE. While a count in an indictment may contain a good common law charge of murder, it is not sufficient under the first subdivision of murder defined in Oklahoma Statutes; yet, as every common law charge of murder embraces some one of the grades of manslaughter, such indictment is good on demurrer.
R. J Ray for plaintiff in error.
C. A. Galbraith, Attorney General, and B. B. Smith, for the territory.
¶1 The appellant was tried in the district court of Woodward county for the murder of one James McGuinn, in the month of October, 1894. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder and assessed the punishment at death. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and overruled, and the court sentenced the appellant to be hanged. Appeal was prayed and execution of sentence stayed pending appeal.
¶2 The indictment is in three counts, and in order to a better understanding of the questions herein involved, we set out the same in full, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnett v. State
...its adherence to the merger doctrine as it “has been applied in Oklahoma for many years,” first being mentioned in Jewell v. Territory, 4 Okla. 53, 43 P. 1075 (Okla.1896), and “a part of Oklahoma's jurisprudence ever since.” Quillen, 2007 OK CR 22, ¶ 3, 163 P.3d 587, 589. ¶ 12 In Quillen, t......
-
Barnett v. State , F–2009–698.
...violation of a constitutional or statutory right). 3. It is remarkable that after being first mentioned in dicta in Jewell v. Territory, 4 Okla. 53, 43 P. 1075 (Okla.1896), we can find no mention of the merger doctrine in a published Oklahoma case for sixty-five years, and then, it was agai......
-
State v. Haworth
...without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.” 21 O.S.2001, § 711(1); Jewell v. Territory, 4 Okla. 53, ¶ 6, 43 P. 1075, 1077 (1896). The Negligent Homicide statute, enacted in 1961, punishes the death of any person which is “a proximate resul......
-
State v. Russell
... ... People , 46 Colo. 173, 102 P ... 165; Mitchell v. State , 60 Ala. 26; ... Jewell v. Territory , 4 Okla. 53, 43 P ... 1075. Here the evidence is positive and undisputed that the ... ...