Case Name: T. E. SMITH v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-02-03
Citations: 7 Okla. Crim. 4
Docket Number: No. A-1296
Parties: T. E. SMITH v. STATE.
Judges: ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ-, concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
T. E. SMITH v. STATE.
No. A-1296.
Opinion Filed February 3, 1912.
(120 Pac. 1031.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Illegal Sale — Evidence. Where the information charges that appellant sold whisky,. beer, wine, and ale, a conviction will not be sustained' upon the proof of the- sale of patent medicine. In other words, where an information charges a specific offense, defendant cannot be convicted of another offense.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Garvin County Court; W. B. M. Mitchell, Judge. .
T. E. Smith was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
R. B. Bozvling and Thompson & Patterson, for appellant.
Smith C. Matson„ Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
EURMAN, P. J.
In this case, the information charged appellant with having sold whisky, beer, wine, and ale. The testimony was that defendant sold a patent medicine, known as "American Elixir." It is a fundamental principle of justice and law that a defendant cannot be charged with one offense and convicted of another. There was therefore a fatal variance between the allegations in the information and the testimony in this case. -If the information had charged that appellant had sold a patent medicine, known as "American Elixir," and that the same was intoxicating, or that it was used as a substitute for intoxicating liquor, and that it contained as much as one-half of one per cent, alcohol, and the proof had shown that such patent medicine came within the provisions of the prohibitory liquor law, then a case would have been made against appellant.
The Attorney General has filed a confession of error in this case. The confession of error is sustained. The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ-, concur.