Koppala and Lampe v. State

• Decision Date: 10 February 1908
• Citation: 89 P. 576,15 Wyo. 398
• Parties: KOPPALA AND LAMPE v. STATE
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

89 P. 576

15 Wyo. 398

KOPPALA AND LAMPE v. STATE

Supreme Court of Wyoming

February 10, 1908

15 Wyo. 398 at 416.

Original Opinion of April 15, 1907, Reported at: 15 Wyo. 398.

Rehearing denied.

BEARD JUSTICE. POTTER, C. J., and SCOTT, J., concur.

OPINION

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

BEARD JUSTICE.

This case was decided at the April, 1907, term of this court. A petition for a rehearing was filed, and, as the case had been submitted on briefs without oral argument, the court requested oral arguments on the petition for rehearing, and the case has been argued orally and at length.

The petition is based upon two grounds, viz.: that the information is insufficient and charges no offense; and that the statute is unconstitutional. The charge contained in the information is as follows: That the defendants "on the 24th day of July, A. D. 1905, at the County of Carbon and State of Wyoming, did then and there, against the caution and in disobedience of the mining boss of Hanna Coal Mine No. 1 at Hanna, Wyoming, unlawfully, wrongfully and wilfully enter said Hanna Coal Mine No. 1, and did then and there, against the caution and in disobedience of the said mining boss, unlawfully, wrongfully and wilfully enter mine entry No. 28, of said Hanna Coal Mine No. 1, an unsafe portion of said mine, and did thereby endanger the lives and health of persons employed in said mine, and did then and there and thereby endanger the security of said mine and the machinery employed therein. The said Nels Koppala and the said Isaac Lampe then and there being miners and workmen employed in said mine. The said Hanna Coal Mine No. 1 then and there being the property of the Union Pacific Coal Company, a corporation, which said Union Pacific Coal Company, a corporation, then and there employed an average of more than ten persons in said Hanna Coal Mine No. 1, during every twenty-four hours."

It is contended that the information is not sufficient, because it does not state the names of the persons whose lives were endangered. But, as stated in the opinion, the information also charges that the security of the mine was endangered which would constitute the offense without the allegation that the life or health of anyone was endangered. The intent to endanger or injure life or property is not an element of the offense; but it consists of the intentional doing of an act with the knowledge that in so doing life or property will be thereby endangered; and the information in this case charges that the defendants, against the caution of the mining boss, entered an unsafe place in the mine and did thereby endanger the life and health of those in the mine and the security of the mine and the machinery therein. To caution means to give notice of danger--to warn against danger--and a fair and reasonable construction of the language of the information is that the defendants did, after being notified and warned of the danger in so doing, intentionally enter an unsafe portion of the mine and did thereby endanger the lives and health of those in the mine and the security of the mine and machinery. Accurate pleading might require a more definite statement in some respects than is contained in the information; but it contains all of the essential elements of the crime, and the charge is substantially in the language of the statute. The offense is purely statutory and the statute fully defines the offense, and in such case it is usually sufficient to...