Court Opinion

ID: 9628216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:13:07.873142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:00.600232
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
BUSSEY, Judge.
Plaintiff in error filed his appeal in this Court, and on December 7, 1960, a decree was rendered remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial. The reversal was based upon the decision of the trial court permitting the county attorney to endorse names of additional witnesses on the information at such a time and in such manner as to be prejudicial to the plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error filed a petition for rehearing requesting that this Court rule on four assignments of error set forth in his original appeal other than the error upon which the case was reversed and remanded.
The first such assignment of error is that the trial court erred in failing to sustain defendant’s demurrer to the information. It is plaintiff in error’s contention that, since the county attorney failed to allege in the charging part of the information that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, such failure rendered the information fatally defective as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
The information in the case at bar is almost identical to the information in Bristow v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 97, 189 P.2d 629, *732where, the information was held to be fatally defective. For cases of like import see: Shiever v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 239, 222 P.2d 530, 531; Ex parte Conway, 84 Okl.Cr. 118, 179 P.2d 699; and Bruning v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 1, 72 P.2d 393.
In view of the above-cited authority, we hold that the trial court should have sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the information in the instant case.
The plaintiff in error in his fourth assignment of error urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence over his objection a copy of the written report of the investigating officer. This contention has been decided in Weeks v. State, 88 Okl.Cr. 291, 202 P.2d 1005, wherein the court stated in the syllabus:
“Copy of report of Highway Patrolman made to Department of Public Safety detailing circumstances of arrest of accused and containing expressions of opinion and conclusions of patrolman, is inadmissible in evidence to sustain a charge of driving an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
In the body of the opinion, the court states:
“We cannot comprehend any basis for the admission of the original of said report in evidence.”
In view of the fact that an accident investigation report filed by a member of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol contains hearsay and opinion evidence, and is a violation of the best evidence rule when the patrolman is present in court to testify as to what he found at the scene of the crime or accident, this court holds that the trial court committed error in admitting said report into evidence over the objection of defendant.
After a careful re-examination of the case made and the briefs of plaintiff in error and defendant in error, we deem it necessary to consider only the contentions of plaintiff in error which are set out above
In reviewing the record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence which if properly presented to and believed by a jury would support a verdict of guilty.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that for the reasons set forth in the original opinion and as herein supplemented, the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.