Case ID: okla-crim_24/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DOYLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. E. GIBBONS et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-4014.
    Opinion Filed July 28, 1923.
    (216 Pac. 950.)
    (Syllabus.)
    Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence Supporting Conviction for Unlawful Possession. In a prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, evidence held sufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction.
    Appeal from County Court, Harmon County; E. C. Abernathy, Judge.
    E. E. Gibbons and another were convicted of the violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Stewart & Edwards, for plaintiffs in error.
    George F. Short, Atty. Gen., N. W. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Leon S. Hirsh, Special Asst. Aitty. Gen., for the State.
   DOYLE, J.

The plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted on an information which charges that E. E. Gibbons and Emmitt Sapp, in Harmon county, on or about the 27th day of January, 1921—

“did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully have in their possession about 50 gallons of certain spirituous, vinous, fermented, malted, and intoxicating liquor, to wit, ‘corn whisky’ and corn! mash, which contained more than one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol measured by volume, and capable of being used as a beverage, with the unlawful intent then and there, on the part of the said E. E. Gibbons and Emmitt Sapp, to sell, barter, give away, and unlawfully dispose of the same contrary to,” etc.

May 4, 192.1, the court rendered judgment and sentenced each defendant to be confined in the county jail for six months and to pay a fine of $500. From the judgment they appealed.

Upon arraignment the defendants interposed a demurrer to the information on the ground that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, which was overruled. Counsel contend that the information is so vague, indefinite, and uncertain that'the defendants were not thereby apprised of the nature of the accusation against them, and for this reason the court erred in overruling the demurrer thereto.

All the statute requires is that the acts charged as the offense be stated with such a degree of certainty, in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended and the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the law of the case. Comp. Stats. 1921, §§ 2555, 2563. The information fully complies with the above requirements, and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.

It is contended that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. The testimony of seven witnesses supports the allegations of the information. The defendants did not testify. We think the testimony, without any doubt, is ample to sustain the conviction.

We discover no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.