Jones v. State, A-11278
| Decision Date | 21 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11278,A-11278 |
| Citation | 229 P.2d 613,94 Okla.Crim. 15 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The test of the sufficiency of an information is whether it alleges every element of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises defendant of what he must be prepared to meet and so defines and identifies the offense that if convicted or acquitted the accused will be able to defend himself against any subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
2. Court erred in overruling demurrer to information purportedly charging the crime of driving an automobile on a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor where the information merely alleged defendant drove an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and omitted an allegation as to the highway or street where it was claimed the defendant drove the vehicle, as it was essential to the validity of the information that it be alleged that the automobile was driven on a highway.
3. Where the appeal is by transcript and no evidence is before the appellate court, the contention that the trial court erred in overruling a motion for continuance will not be considered on appeal.
Jerome Sullivan, Duncan, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Ass't. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This appeal is from a conviction sustained in the County Court of Stephens County on the purported charge of driving an automobile on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The appeal is by transcript and none of the evidence in the trial is before us.
Two propositions are presented: 1. Alleged error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the information. 2. Alleged error of the court in overruling the motion for continuance.
The prosecution was instituted under the provisions of the statute making it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to operate or drive a motor vehicle on any highway within this state. Tit. 47 O.S.1941 § 93.
The information filed against the defendant reads:
'In the Name and by the Authority of the State of Oklahoma, now comes James F. Bennett the duly qualified and acting County Attorney, in and for Stephens County, State of Oklahoma, and gives the County Court of Stephens County and State of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that John Paul Jones did, in Stephens County, and in the State of Oklahoma, on or about the 4th day of December in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-eight and anterior to the presentment hereof, commit the crime of Driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in the manner and form as follows, to-wit:
'That the said defendant, late of Stephens County, Oklahoma, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, then and there being, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and wrongfully drive and operate a 1942 Chevrolet Coach, bearing 1948 Oklahoma License No. 23-7511, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to-wit: From a point 135 feet South of the intersection of Choctaw and Broadway Streets in the City of Marlow, Oklahoma, at which point he was involved in a property damage accident, contrary to the form of the Statutes, in such cases made and provided, against the peace and dignity of the State of Oklahoma.'
At the arraignment of the defendant his counsel filed a demurrer to the information on the ground that the information did not state an offense against the laws of the state of Oklahoma, and secondly it was wholly insufficient to allege the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...116 (1942); McCoy v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 412, 223 P.2d 778 (1950); Douglas v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 132, 225 P.2d 376 (1951); Jones v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 15, 229 P.2d 613 (1951); Vandiver v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 217, 261 P.2d 617 (1953); Gibson v. State, 328 P.2d 718 (Okl.Cr.1958); Fish v. State, 505......
-
Parker v. State
...State, 96 Okl.Cr. 18, 248 P.2d 267 (1952); Group v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 401, 236 P.2d 997 (1951) (relied on in Plotner ); Jones v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 15, 229 P.2d 613 (1951); Douglas v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 132, 225 P.2d 376 (1950); McCoy v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 412, 223 P.2d 778 (1950); Argo v. Sta......
-
Simmons v. State, F--75--232
...defendant and the State have correctly cited the appropriate test for the sufficiency of an information as stated in Jones v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 15, 229 P.2d 613 (1951), in the first paragraph of the Syllabus by the Court, as 'The test of the sufficiency of an information is whether it alleg......
-
Oates v. State
...all. It is said that any doubt as to the issue as to the sufficiency of the information has been settled by the case of Jones v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 15, 229 P.2d 613, 614. In the Jones case the defendant was charged with driving a described motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicat......