Wilkerson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 June 1913 |
| Citation | 132 P. 1120,9 Okla.Crim. 662,1913 OK CR 162 |
| Parties | WILKERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a defendant is on trial charged with having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, it is not competent for the state to prove, as evidence in chief against him, that he has the general reputation of being a bootlegger.
Where the character or reputation of a defendant is not an element of the offense for which he is upon trial, and the defendant does not take the stand as a witness in his own behalf, it is error for the state to offer evidence of his bad character.
Appeal from County Court, Stephens County; W. H. Admire, Judge.
J. L Wilkerson was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession with intent to sell, and appeals. Reversed.
Wilkinson & Morris, of Duncan, for appellant.
Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Upon the trial of this cause, over the repeated objection of counsel for appellant, the state was permitted to prove by a number of witnesses that the appellant had the general reputation in the community in which he resided of being a bootlegger. The question which we are called upon to decide is as to whether or not such testimony is admissible as evidence in chief against a defendant, where the defendant is upon trial charged with having in his possession intoxicating liquors with the intention of selling the same.
Where a defendant is upon trial for keeping a house of ill fame or for maintaining a place at which intoxicating liquors are sold, or for maintaining any nuisance, the character of the house or place kept is an element of the offense, and in such cases the general reputation of the house may be proven. This is the settled law of Oklahoma. See Carroll v. State, 4 Okl. Cr. 242, 111 P. 1021; Smith v. State, 6 Okl Cr. 380, 118 P. 1003; Ostendorf v. State, 8 Okl Cr. 360, 128 P. 143; Putman v. State, 132 P 916; and Edmons v. State, 132 P. 923, decided at the present term.
The reason and philosophy of the law underlying the principle stated in the above cases is that the character of the house is an element of the offense committed, for it is the advertisement of the owner, and assists him in committing the offense and is a source of revenue to him, and the offense is continuous. But where a person is charged with an offense which is based upon one specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial