Williams v. State

Therefore, deed. drafted party WILLIAMS, Appellant, James W. the intention of to ascertain are left we four corners of the within the parties from

document. Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of appeal that since maintain Defendants No. F-76-634 “thereafter” clause requirements Appeals Oklahoma. Criminal they of the grant, to one tract met as are 18, 1977. March They entire interest. are met as Rehearing Denied June for the interest con- consideration argue the therefore, the deed veyed was regardless is indivisible

entire short, conveyed; in of tracts

number conveyed They were as a unit.

eight tracts argue phrases use of such as “ex- therefrom,” excepting reserving

pressly whole,” property,” “from

“in and said therefrom,” clearly indicate intent of

“and conveyed a unit. to treat tracts

grantor grantor maintains intended to

Plaintiff individually separately; tracts

treat the argues grantor

he if intended otherwise quarter quar- and northeast

the northwest conveyed

ter would have been as the north

half. argument weight. carries

Plaintiff’s

However, upon considering singleness of construing granting

consideration and clause de together,

clause and reservation position persuasive.

fendants’ We con

clude, considering whole, the deed as in parties was to treat

tent of the several conveyed as

tracts a unit. See Dickerson al.,

Ray 20 Ill.2d et N.E.2d 341.

Therefore, plaintiff’s interest the tract in is not freed of royalty defendants’

interest production upon cessation of

alone.

Reversed.

All Justices concur. Smith, Smith, Romig Oyler

John & Okla- City, appellant. homa Gen., Atty. Larry Derryberry, Michael Gen., Jackson, Atty. appellee. Asst. OPINION BUSSEY, Presiding Judge: Williams, James Appellant, W. herein- defendant, to as after referred tried and charged, convicted of Carrying Firearm, After Former Conviction a Fel- ony in violation 21 O.S.1971, 1283, in Court, District Oklahoma County, Case No. The jury CRF-75-1722. punish- fixed eighteen (18) imprison- ment at months’ timely ment. Defendant perfected has appeal. stated,

Briefly the testimony indicates 20, 1975, May defendant was son, personal in any another effects or owned automo- driving an automobile Ted City Officers Police bile, shotgun.” Midwest as a sawed-off person. observed Allgeir Richard Askew This instruction a virtual parroting of 21 roadway after weaving on O.S.1971, 1283. is no There mention of a it, the defendant-driver removed stopping of finding of in- knowledge, and of about him aroma alcohol had an who rea, tent, mens etc. arresting After speech was slurred. whose requested instructions defin- Defendant’s drunk, after and public and for DUI him and ing “wilfully” “knowingly” and another vehicle, patrol Officer in the him placing defense, regarding theory his of he had that ear to defendant’s returned Askew vehicle, weapon of in knowledge the the no window, ob- the driver’s looking through rejected the court. were protruding of a revolver butt the served the suit on floor- coat1 light blue on have looked criminal intent as Courts the vehicle. side of passenger’s of the board crime, necessary element of or as we said .38 loaded gun caliber—was said the He —a Syllabus paragraph seven of the in Fin- in wad with a cutter super vel round one 309, 849, 84 P.2d ley Okl.Cr. 181 v. He also said gun would fire. and stated the (1947), 859 of “criminal intent the essence per mile hour seventy-five during the that ...” liability, all criminal duration, the in one mile of about chase expresses phrase A the sen latín identical passenger’s over the leaned to defendant perhaps poetic in a more “Ac- timent tone: cross-examination, Offi- car. On of the side reum, facit tus non nisi mens sit rea—a pro- was the not said revolver Askew cer is not committed if the crime mind of the when he re- fingerprints, and tected doing the act is patrol person asked the the car and innocent.” United to turned weapon, Lovely, the the defendant 77 F.Supp. 619, (E.D.S. about v. States 621 defendant knowledge gun. of a any C.,1948). [Tr. 108] denied tes- Washington County Court Clerk The But, legislatures of recent have date in Williams was convicted that James tified regard made certain acts criminal without and a Bartlesville No. CRF-72-620 Case knowledge or to intent actor. identified the defendant as officer police “ general rule the at common law ‘While Williams convicted in Case James W. the the scienter was necessary was CRF-72-620. No. the proof in indictment and of element and remand this We must reverse crime, every and this followed in the to properly of trial court for failure case crimes, regard statutory to even where jury. gave in court five instruct statutory definition did not in terms only re and Instruction No. 3 structions ., . there . been a include has itself, to elements the crime of ferred this view to respect modification of in reads as follows: which prosecutions under statutes purpose that the law “You are instructed which would be such a of obstructed provides Oklahoma State It is a requirement. legisla- having unlawful any person shall be intent, to be construed by tive the court. ’ ” any felony been convicted of previously omitted) (Citations . United or the any court state United Ballint, 252, 250, 251, 258 U.S. States carry any or in person, to his States 301, 302, 604, 66 L.Ed. 605 42 S.Ct. he is or in which operating, which Magnolia Pipe quoted Line Co. any a passenger, pistol, riding ishe (1952). 95 Okl.Cr. 243 369 P.2d pistol, homemade machine or imitation [Emphasis added] rifle, shotgun any or or gun, sawed-off This Court has said that to ascertain dangerous deadly or firearm other easily per- legislature: on the the intention be as concealed could wearing light pants blue which matched coat. 1. Defendant was

49 “ part look each court fendant’s vehicle constituted circumstan- ‘[T]he statute, upon other statutes proof tial that defendant knew of its subjects, relative evils and or same presence intended operate the ve- remedied, and to the to be nat- mischiefs containing hicle the gun. . . .’’at consequences any par- absurd ural or ” page Magnolia Pipe interpretation.’ ticular State, supra, quoting Blevins Line Co. We, therefore, hold that it was not Co., 72 P. A. Graham Okl. v. W. Legislature, the intent in enacting (1919). statute, to convict one who has no silent, “knowledge statute is When the intent or guilty knowledge, and that generally intent are essential if the criminal “wilfully” as used term in the information turpitude, moral but not if it crime involves prohibitum.” is malum 22 C.J.S. Criminal the term “knowingly” are necessary in Law 30. Other elements to consider § of the parts language statute and should be determining legislative the intent include in explained jury the instructions. subject of prohibition “the matter the and design, purpose its manifest and and the We hold that where there is of the several to consequences constructions of of evidence lack knowledge, however may susceptible.” statute be 22 which the and the slight, defendant relies on it as his 30, 103, Law pp. Criminal 104. § C.J.S. defense, an instruction covering stated, This in same Court must omitted] [Footnotes State, 310, Wilson v. 50 Okl.Cr. 297 P. 826 given jury be where properly re (1931): by the quested defendant. of evidence such intent be made “If the of jury to the satisfaction the appear to In the case at bar there was such doubt, that a reasonable is all the beyond evidence, e., i. the officer’s recollection that requires.” law disclaimed any defendant knowledge of the State, Okl.Cr., Thompson In v. 488 P.2d revolver and ownership of the by a on (1971), part overturned in another 944 other person than the defendant. As this State, Okl.Cr., Dolph 520 P.2d issue in v. Dolph State, held in v. supra, at 381: said: we 380 . crime, question “. . The of a the . .To constitute act whether de- by a criminal intent accompanied must be of presence knew the fendant of the fire- the v. part Finley on of accused. the arm was a to be determined State, 181 84 Okl.Cr. P.2d Gen- jury. Where the there ais conflict in the an or erally, implication inference evidence, the it is exclusive province of may a criminal intent to commit crime trier of facts the to weigh evidence, the from arise certain established facts. truth, the determine and determine the Thus, gun the fact a was in found guilt may or glove compartment, pre- be defendant’s ques- the innocence. A presence knew its defendant sumed relating tion fact to the merits of the operate to the vehicle con- and intended .beyond the scope is suit of review in this However, the presump- taining gun. the Court.” [Citation omitted] . tion criminal intent rebuttable Although this case must re be carrying a fire- “To convict defendant and versed remanded for the reasons above operating, a which he was arm in vehicle stated, and the issue is not properly before only show defend- necessary it was not us, an examination of the record us to leads the gun in car when ant was conclude that some necessary clarification is there, but also must be shown defend- ” procedures be followed counsel . . . gun was there. ant knew for the when, defendant and the court as in State, supra, we held: Dolph In case, the instant charged defendant is in Court should have found “[T]his Firearm, Carrying a After Former finding . . . Thompson compartment in of de- glove Felony firearm the con- Conviction former 50 misde- arguing only from a that a the offense “fortuitious elevates circum-

viction us case before felony. In the to a stance of destination of the arrestee”1 meanor in a was convicted may determine whether he is entitled defendant to a a rule for violation two-stage trial in or stage one-stage trial. hearing, set bifurcated, two-stage, or The State also argues un Okl.Cr., P.2d 478 in Baeza

forth derlying felony is a conviction substantial stated: (1970), wherein we O.S.1971, 1283, of 21 and as try such cases is to procedure in “The such, is an essential element of the crime two-stage procedure defendant pled be must proved which in a single Okl.Cr., 369 P.2d 187 Harris [re- hearing, stage analogous prosecution un subsequent punish- ferring to second O.S.Supp.1976, 443, Escape der from a In the first ment enhancement statute]. Institution: Penal jury proceedings should stage of the whether or not defendant determine there is some merit to While the State’s carrying a firearm. After guilty of this Court is of the opinion argument, done, the state should then offer has been give way the need it must to accord the former conviction in process evidence avoid, due accused and to where stage, jury and the instructed procedure second any unneces- possible, provided for a fire- penalty carrying sarily jury. In prejudice most instances felony.” of a former conviction arm after exemplified violations of § bar, possible, is the case at utilization see, State, Thompson supra. Also proceedings, bifurcated to shield the entering plea, Before his the defendant jury potential prejudicial evidence file a for Bifurcated Proceed- should Motion guilt it makes its decision on or innocence. plea and if not filed before the is ings, However, in other one-stage cases a trial is taken, the error is deemed waived.2 When by virtue mandated fact Proceedings a Motion for Bifurcated is arrestee carried weapon compli- total filed, prior entry plea of not with Oklahoma Act2 ance Firearms guilty, the trial court should follow the rule sole violation of state law came from State, supra, in Baeza v. in all enunciated combining the carrying weapon of a particulars. felony (§ 1283, conviction supra). reasons, foregoing the above and this For with the agree We State argues when is REVERSED AND REMANDED case prior felony an that the conviction is essen- A NEW TRIAL. FOR a tial element of violation but in § BRETT, JJ., process, the interest of concur. constitutional due BLISS stage element must await the second ON REHEARING introduced, be possible. trial when BUSSEY, Presiding Judge: In above light reasoning, Peti- DENIED, Rehearing tion for and the State of Oklahoma has filed Peti- a Clerk of directed to issue the Rehearing styled in the above tion Mandate FORTHWITH. cause, and asks this Court numbered for bifurcated reconsider J., Opinion, BRETT, as set forth in our concurs.

proceedings only exception two-page noted that the should be information contains It facts sufficient rule is finding trial found Marr jury bifurcated that a allow state statute has Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 324 which al- not, single page If then a been violated. infor- stage trial when the firearm in used, lows supra. as in Marr be mation compliance and carried in unloaded question is O.S.1971, 1289.7, which be would with legal O.S.1971, § 1. See 21 1289.6. person carry- except the fact that the determining is a felon. The ing the firearm O.S.1971, 1289.1, seq. 2. See 21 et page proposed the first is whether factor

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 18, 1977

Citation: 565 P.2d 46

Docket Number: F-76-634

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.