Morrison v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | A-5886. |
| Parties | MORRISON v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the sufficiency of an information is first challenged by a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense, every intendment and inference will be indulged to sustain the information.
(a) Held that the information in this case properly charges the offense of driving an automobile while intoxicated.
An application for a continuance on account of sickness of a defendant is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the overruling of such application is not error unless there is an abuse of such discretion.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Laws 1923, c. 16, forbidding driving of automobile on highway while intoxicated, does not violate Const. art. 5, § 57.
Appeal from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge.
Katherine Cole Morrison was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and appeals. Affirmed.
B. C Trice, of Pawhuska, and Walter L. Gray, of Fairfax, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. F Short, Atty. Gen. for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the district court of Osage county on a charge of driving an automobile while intoxicated, was sentenced to pay a fine of $250, and to be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.
The record discloses a state of facts about as follows: On March 25, 1925, defendant drove an automobile along the streets of Pawhuska, collided with a Ford car, but did not stop, and a short distance farther ran over, and severely injured, a small boy on a bicycle, drove several blocks, finally stopped her car, and was apprehended. The evidence is that in driving the movement of the car was erratic, and several times she got off the road. When the officers and others arrived where she had stopped they smelled whisky. Defendant appeared to be intoxicated, laughed, talked, and staggered. One witness testified she could hardly stand. Defendant denied that she was intoxicated, and stated that she did not know she ran into the Ford, and that she did not see the boy, and did not run over him.
It is first contended that the statute (chapter 16, Session Laws 1923) under which the prosecution was had is unconstitutional, as in violation of section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution. This contention has been considered at some length in the case of Simpkins v. State, 249 P. 168, No. A-5883 (not yet officially reported), just decided by this court adversely to the contention of the defendant.
Complaint is next made that the information is insufficient to charge a public offense. No demurrer was filed to the information and no objection to the introduction of evidence interposed, but after verdict, motion in arrest of judgment on account of insufficiency of the information was filed. It is generally held that, where a defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial