Cotton v. State

14 Citing cases

  1. Lane v. State

    572 P.2d 991 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 11 times
    In Lane v. State, 572 P.2d 991 (Okla. Cr. 1978), this Court stated: "Defendant should have stated specifically why he objected to the instructions, and further, should have submitted proposed instructions to the court in writing, in lieu of the instructions which he deemed objectionable."

    This Court has often stated that defects in the information, except those that go to jurisdiction such as the sufficiency of facts stated to constitute a public offense, are waived if they are not presented prior to trial. See, Wright v. State, Okla. Cr. 505 P.2d 507 (1973); Crane v. State, Okla. Cr. 461 P.2d 986 (1969); Edwards v. State, Okla. Cr. 307 P.2d 872 (1957); and, Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739 (1922). Further, this Court has held that merely filing a written demurrer is not enough. Rather, it must be brought to the attention of the court and actively urged.

  2. Tharpe v. State

    358 P.2d 232 (Okla. Crim. App. 1961)   Cited 8 times

    If the defendant had any question as to whether he was about to be tried for an assault with a dangerous weapon or for a mere assault and battery, he should have raised the objection by demurrer to the information before announcing ready for trial; otherwise the objection was waived. Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739. In White v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 143, 111 P. 1010, this court set forth the rule that where the defendant enters his plea of not guilty and waits until the jury has been empaneled and sworn, and then for the first time questions the sufficiency of the information by objecting to the introduction of evidence on the ground of such insufficiency, the objection should be overruled if by any reasonable construction or intendment the information can be sustained.

  3. Williams v. State

    96 Okla. Crim. 184 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 1 times

    Therein the information was held to be sufficient. In Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739, the information alleged the defendant assaulted the victim with a knife and did "strike, beat, bruise, wound, cut, and otherwise illtreat him." Likewise, this information was held to be sufficient.

  4. Clasby v. State

    143 P.2d 430 (Okla. Crim. App. 1943)   Cited 18 times

    For the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that the defendant had waived his right to attack the information in this case. Willis v. State, 64 Okla. Cr. 213, 78 P.2d 840; Jenner v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 235, 114 P.2d 958; Jackson v. State, 71 Okla. Cr. 258, 110 P.2d 929; Stone v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 313, 155 P. 701; Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739; Franklin v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 348, 188 P. 686. The second assignment of error is that the court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence.

  5. Vincent v. State

    75 Okla. Crim. 128 (Okla. Crim. App. 1942)   Cited 5 times

    The information also charging in the same manner three other cases, in which the number of the case was given and the amount of the fine and jail sentence imposed. We think these allegations should be construed together with the allegations above stated where it was alleged in the information that "defendant had formerly been convicted of violating the prohibition laws of the State of Oklahoma" and "in the Common Pleas Court in and for Oklahoma County, Oklahoma". There can be no question but that upon reading the above information defendant was apprised with what crime he was charged and that it was in such terms that a second offense could not be made against defendant growing out of the same facts. Scott v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 296, 268 P. 312; Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739; Price v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 359, 131 P. 1102; State v. Feeback, 3 Okla. Cr. 508, 107 P. 442; Warren v. State, 24 Okla. Cr. 6, 215 P. 635. It of course would have been better pleading if it had been charged after each case referred to that it had occurred in Oklahoma county, Oklahoma, but for the reasons above stated and the decisions of this court in construing the statutes above quoted, the information was good against a general demurrer.

  6. Smith v. State

    69 Okla. Crim. 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 1940)   Cited 8 times
    In Smith v. State, 69 Okla. Cr. 17, 99 P.2d 527, this Court held that the purpose of this constitutional requirement "is to apprise defendant who the witnesses are, where they may be found, and to enable him to investigate their testimony, their character, and credibility...."

    Under the above statement we do not believe the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the information. While the iron pipe may not be a dangerous weapon "per se", the description and manner of its use in this case convinced the jury that it was. Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739; James v. State, 47 Okla. Cr. 164, 286 P. 912; Spencer v. State, 49 Okla. Cr. 208, 293 P. 278. The contention that the phrase in the statute, "any other dangerous weapon," is governed and controlled by the words immediately preceding it, and those general words being "firearms," that when the term "any other dangerous weapon" was used it was intended to have reference to a "firearm" of some description, cannot be sustained.

  7. Harry v. State

    59 Okla. Crim. 302 (Okla. Crim. App. 1936)   Cited 14 times
    In Harry v. State, 59 Okla. Cr. 302, 58 P.2d 340, 343, the defendant was charged with receiving a deposit in an insolvent bank.

    Section 2956. Stone v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 313, 155 P. 701; Franklin v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 348, 188 P. 686; Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739; Rhodes v. State, 58 Okla. Cr. 1, 49 P.2d 226. If no crime is charged in the indictment, then none is confessed by pleading guilty thereto, and this question may be considered though for the first time raised on appeal as in this case.

  8. Rhodes v. State

    58 Okla. Crim. 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1935)   Cited 9 times

    It follows that the evidence must establish the obtaining of the property alleged in the information, or some part of it, that by such delivery the property passed out of the title, possession, and control of the accuser and into that of the accused, and proof of obtaining part of the property described will justify conviction. In the case of Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739, it is said: "A variance is a disagreement between the allegations in the information and the proof as to some matter which is legally essential to the charge, and which might subject the accused to another trial for the same offense."

  9. State v. Force

    53 Okla. Crim. 371 (Okla. Crim. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    "That on or about said day and date and in said county and state, the said L. C. Force, then and there being, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, intentionally and feloniously, without justification or excusable cause, make an assault in and upon one M. W. Powell, with a certain pistol, said pistol being then and there a dangerous weapon and then and there had and held in the hands of him, the said L. C. Force, and that the said L. C. Force did then and there with said pistol so had and held as aforesaid, strike, wound and injure then and there the said W. M. Powell in and upon the body of him, the said W. M. Powell, with the unlawful, wrongful and felonious intent, then and there, on the part of him, the said L. C. Force, to do bodily harm and injury to him, the said W. M. Powell, contrary to the form of the statute" etc. In Clark v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 494, 148 P. 676, 678; Fields v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 731, 167 P. 344; Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739; Gidens v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 137, 236 P. 912, and Kinter v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 201, 267 P. 680, this court held similar informations charging assault with a dangerous weapon to be sufficient. In the recent case of Cooke v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 348, 12 P.2d 244, this court discusses the necessary allegations in an information for assault with a dangerous weapon, citing not only the Oklahoma cases, but also cases from Arkansas, California, and New York.

  10. Spencer v. State

    49 Okla. Crim. 208 (Okla. Crim. App. 1930)   Cited 4 times
    In Spencer v. State, 49 Okla. Cr. 208, 293 P. 278, it was alleged that the defendant did "strike, cut, stab, wound and injure".

    "3. That said information is duplicitous in form and does not with reasonable certainty inform a person of common understanding of the charge against him." The charging part of this information is copied practically verbatim from the information in the case of Cotton v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 252, 210 P. 739, wherein the court held a similar information to be sufficient. While the information in the case at bar is not a model one, it was sufficient to charge the defendant with assault with a dangerous weapon and was not duplicitous.