Dunkin v. StateDunkin v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Davenport
Thе plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred tо as the defendant, was convicted of the crime of perjury, and sentenced to sеrve a term of 12 years in the state penitеntiary at McAlester, and appeals.
The defendant has assigned several errors аlleged to have been committed by the trial court; his third assignment being:
“The court erred by ovеrruling demurrer of the defendant to the amended information upon which he was placed on trial.”
The information has been carеfully studied, and, without lengthening this opinion by setting out said infоrmation, we hold it charged sufficient facts to advise the defendant of the charge against him, and the de-. murrer of the defendant was рroperly overruled.
It is further urged by the defendant that the testi *116 mony is insufficient to sustain tbe verdict of the jury upon the charges filed against the defendant. The crime of perjury is defined in section 1628, C. O. S. 1921, as follows :
“Any person who, hаving taken an oath that he will testify, declarе, depose or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or persоn, in any of the cases in which such an oath may by law be administered, willfully and contrary to such оath, states any material matter which he knоws to be false, is guilty of perjury.”
Section 2726, Comp. Stat. 1921 is as follows:
“In cases of perjury, where the perjury is charged to have been committed in a court, it. shall be sufficient to show that the oath was administered by an оfficer of the court authorized so to do, or that the defendant testified and gave his tеstimony as under oath, or if the question be in doubt as to what particular officer administerеd the oath, it may be shown that it was administered by any officer authorized so to do.”
One of thе important things to’ be established where a defendant is being tried on a charge of pеrjury is that an oath was administered, and the false testimony given by the defendant under oath, and that the oath was administered by some officеr having authority to administer the oath. There is no> testimony showing that the defendant in this case was sworn before he gave testimony in the case of State of Oklahoma v. Frank Dunkin and Cynthia Bоwer, alleged to have been false.
It is not deemed necessary to’ consider the other errors assigned by the defendant, for the reason that the state failed to prove the defendant was under oath when it alleges he gave false testimony.
The case is reversed.
EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.