Jones v. State, A-14024.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A-14024.,A-14024. |
| Parties | Mary Kathryn JONES, 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 |
Sid White, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
G.T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Mary Kathryn Jones was charged, tried and convicted for the crime of Grand Larceny and from judgment and sentence fixing her punishment at three (3) years in the State Penitentiary, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
On appeal there are three assignments of error, which we will consider in the order in which they were presented in the briefs of the respective parties.
The first assignment of error is "That her trial was not presided over by any duly elected and qualified judge."
The trial judge, John A. Brett, was a Supernumerary Judge. This position was authorized and created under 20 O.S. 1961, § 921, 20 O.S. 1965, Supp. § 922, and 20 O.S. 1961, §§ 923-925. Plaintiff in Error alleges that these statutes are in contravention of Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
The State contends this is an erroneous interpretation of the statutes. 20 O.S. 1961, § 923 clearly says, "A Supernumerary Judge shall have the duties and exercise the authority of the office to which he is assigned * * *." Thus, it was stated and intended by the Legislature that Supernumerary Judges were not to be District Judges, but were to "have the duties and exercise the authority" of District Judges.
That the Legislature has the power, if not limited by constitutional provision, to provide for special judges is established law. At 48 C.J.S. Judges § 99, it is stated:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held in a syllabus of Dobbs v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, 208 Okl. 514, 257 P.2d 802:
"Our constitution vests in the legislature the supreme power to enact laws to meet the needs of the State, and its acts should be upheld unless plainly and clearly within the express prohibitions and limitations fixed by the constitution."
There is not a constitutional restriction on the Legislature forbidding or pre-empting establishment of a method of selection of special judges; therefore, the legislative enactment challenged by Plaintiff in Error is clearly constitutional.
Plaintiff in Error's second assignment of error is "That the witnesses were required to place their left hands upon a New Testament when sworn and thereby a religious test was injected into the trial." Counsel for Plaintiff in Error then cites 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 401, which reads:
We observe that this statute does not dictate the mode of administering the oath.
At 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 320b, it is said:
"Where a witness takes an oath administered in the usual manner without objection, he may be presumed to have intended that his conscience shall be bound thereby, and on appeal it will be presumed that the trial court caused the witness to be sworn in the manner most binding on his conscience, unless it appears that some other method was insisted on by the witness or opposing counsel as most likely to accomplish that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Smith
... ... Boston W. SMITH, Judge in and for the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and the State of Oklahoma, Respondents ... No. A-14172 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma ... April 12, ... ...
-
Roberson v. State
...held for evidence in the prosecution.' This case has been quoted with approval in Love v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 7, 292 P. 882; Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 426 P.2d 377, and other This Court will not reverse a trial court upon findings of fact in connection with a motion to suppress the evidence wh......