Court Opinion

ID: 9628858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:33:20.905348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:12.619254
License: Public Domain

. LANE, Judge,
concur in results:
¶ 1 I disagree with the opinion of the majority to the extent that I concur in results.
¶ 2 I believe that the State led us down the wrong path when it labeled the crime “Attempting to Intimidate a State’s Witness.” Our statute 21 O.S.1991, § 455 sets out two ways that the statute can be violated. The first is preventing a person from testifying. The second, the one presently concerning us, is threatening physical or mental harm with intent to prevent a witness from testifying or to get the witness to alter his testimony. Appellant accomplished this when he made the threats in the hallway of the court house. Therefore, the use of the word “attempting” in the label of the offense was improper. However, this would not affect the outcome of the case. The body of the information properly charges the crime. Since the body of the Information controls over the label that is put on the crime, reversible error did not occur. Roberson v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 11, 362 P.2d 1115, 1117.