State v. Truesdell
| Decision Date | 07 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 0-80-39,0-80-39 |
| Citation | 620 P.2d 427 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Zola V. TRUESDELL, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The State has appealed to this Court from a ruling of the District Court in Nowata County, dismissing Case No. CRF-79-41. In that case Zola V. Truesdell was charged with being an accessory to the crime of Shooting With the Intent to Kill after her ex-husband was shot ten times by their twelve-year-old son. There was a preliminary hearing and she was ordered to be held for trial, but at a subsequent motion hearing a district judge ruled that a juvenile cannot commit a felony and that therefore there was no crime to which Ms. Truesdell could have been an accessory.
Before treating the question presented by the State, there is an initial issue in this case which merits discussion even though it was not argued by the parties. The order entered by the judge in this case purports to sustain both a motion to quash the information and a demurrer to the information; but these are two very different pleadings. A demurrer to the information can be sustained only on a few specific grounds-22 O.S.1971, § 504; and except for subsection one, which pertains to grand jury indictments, all the grounds for a demurrer to the information relate to the face of the pleading. Also, unless the court directs otherwise, a sustained demurrer to the information is a bar to any further prosecution for the offense charged-22 O.S.1971, § 508. A motion to quash, or to set aside, the information, on the other hand, is not a bar to further prosecution-22 O.S.1971, § 501. And in addition to the specific grounds set forth in 22 O.S.1971, § 493, this pleading is used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. See, for instance, State v. Edmondson, Okl.Cr., 536 P.2d 386 (1975).
Regardless of the label given it, the order in the present case must be considered an order sustaining a motion to quash. It has nothing to do with the demurrer because the ruling was not based on the face of the information, which did not say that the person who did the shooting was a juvenile. This fact was disclosed only in the evidence presented at the preliminary examination. In ruling that the case had to be dismissed because the purported principal in the case was a child, the judge was, in effect, ruling that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing did not justify ordering Ms. Truesdell held for trial.
In Oklahoma, all parties to a crime are either principals or accessories after the fact. The elements of the crime of accessory after the fact are that the predicate felony be completed, that the offender have knowledge that the person she's aiding (the principal) committed the crime, and that the accessory conceal or aid the principal. Title 21 O.S.1971, § 173. This Court has held that an accessory is not connected with the original crime, but is connected with the offender after the original offense has been committed. Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 552 P.2d 1404 (1976), Vann v. State, 21 Okl.Cr. 298, 207 P. 102 (1922). Thus, the crime of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouwkamp v. State
...possibility of the innocence in the principal offense and sequentially subsequent involvement in another crime. See also State v. Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427 (Okl.Cr.1980). Adequate and seemingly unanimous support for the validity of Bouwkamp's theory of defense is established in the relevant c......
-
State v. Hammond, S-87-994
...Still v. Dalton, 624 P.2d 76, 78 (Okla.Crim.App.1981); State v. Tieman, 626 P.2d 1360, 1361 (Okla.Crim.App.1981); State v. Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427, 428 (Okla.Crim.App.1980); State v. Durham, 545 P.2d 805, 811-12 (Okla.Crim.App.1976); City of Tulsa v. Haley, 554 P.2d 102, 105 (Okla.Crim.App.......
-
Wilson v. State
...there is no evidence either Boynes or Garland were present when the plans were made or when the crimes were executed. See State v. Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427 (Okl.Cr.1980). The primary value of their testimony was to trace Wilson's activities after the crime. The robbery victim's testimony pro......
-
State v. Dutton
... ... years of age and older are capable of committing ... felonies[,]" and "anyone who, with the requisite ... intent and knowledge, harbors, conceals or aids these ... youthful principals after the commission of a felony is ... guilty of being an accessory."); State v ... Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427, 429 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) ... ("The fact that the principal is a minor goes to his ... legal status, not his factual status, and it is immaterial as ... to the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the charge of ... accessory after the fact."); but cf. Frost v ... State, 527 ... ...