Morgan v State

Morgan v State
1931 OK CR 380
2 P.2d 603
52 Okl.Cr. 95
Decided: 08/28/1931
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Indictment and Information Sufficiency of Information. An information which informs an accused of the offense with which he is charged with such particularity as to enable him to prepare for his trial, and so defines and identifies the offense that, if convicted or acquitted, he will be able to defend himself against any subsequent prosecution for the same offense, is sufficient.

2. Same Perjury Averments by Way of Inducement in General Terms. Those averments in an indictment or information for perjury which form the foundation for the commission of the offense, commonly called inducement, may be pleaded in general terms. Under our Code, such matters are not required to be pleaded with that precision and particularity as are averments which charge the offense itself.

Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Hal Johnson, Judge.

W.O. Morgan was convicted of perjury, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Page 96

E.M. Carter, for plaintiff in error.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CHAPPELL, J. Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Lincoln county of the crime of perjury, and his punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for ten years.

Defendant was charged with the crime of perjury committed in the trial of Golden McCollum, charged with robbery with firearms of the First National Bank of Prague, Okla.

The evidence in this case and the questions of law arising are practically the same as in Billy McCollum v. State, 52 Okla. Cr. 28, 2 P.2d 291, decided by this court on the 21st day of August, 1931, wherein the said Billy McCollum was charged with the crime of perjury committed in the trial of Golden McCollum, and in which case there is a synopsis of the evidence and a full discussion of the questions of law involved.