Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | A-4787. |
| Citation | 232 P. 966,29 Okla.Crim. 136 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a prosecution for unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor evidence considered, and held insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The state cannot attack the character of a defendant unless he first puts that in issue by introducing evidence of his good character.
In the trial of a criminal case the issue is singular and is based upon the question, "Did the defendant commit the crime charged?" and not upon the question, "Has the defendant the reputation of having committed the crime charged, or some similar crime?"
While the defendant in a criminal prosecution has the right to insist that only competent evidence shall be introduced against him he may waive the right, and he does waive it by failing to introduce proper and timely objections.
Appeal from District Court, Ottawa County; J. J. Smith, Judge.
John Martin was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, second offense, and he appeals. Reversed.
A. W Turner, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
This appeal is from a judgment of the district court of Ottawa county, rendered on the verdict of a jury finding the defendant, John Martin, guilty of transporting whisky, second offense, and fixing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years and a fine of $100.
The assignments of error relate to rulings of the court in the admission of evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence taken as a whole, to sustain the verdict.
Sam L Braeselton testified that he was in the government service as an enforcement officer and was standing on the street when deputy sheriff Jennings came dragging and pulling the defendant along, holding both his hands, and asked him to take the bottle of whisky out of Martin's pocket; that he took a half pint bottle of whisky from the defendant's person.
U. S. Jennings, deputy sheriff, testified that as he was passing the Woodland Drug Store in Picher, the defendant came out on the porch and he grabbed hold of him and went to search him; that the defendant tried to put his hand in his pocket and he prevented him and asked Mr. Braeselton to take the bottle off of him.
As a witness in his own behalf the defendant, John Martin, testified that he was coming out of the door of the Woodland Drug Store, Mr. Jennings arrested him and dragged him down to the corner where an officer took a half pint of whisky out of his pocket; that a man in the drug store gave him the bottle to sample it.
In rebuttal, Jennings, deputy sheriff, was recalled and against the defendant's objections he further testified as follows:
After a careful examination of the record, the conclusion of the court is that the judgment in this case cannot be permitted to stand. It has been repeatedly decided by this court that the fact that an offense has been committed cannot be proven by common rumor or general repute.
It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the character of a defendant cannot be impeached or attacked by the state unless he puts his character in issue by introducing evidence of good character. Says Bishop:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial