Legal Opinion

Beam v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided January 4, 1921No. A-3518PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatson, J.

(after stating the facts as1 above). It is first contended that the trial court erred in not sustaining the motion to quash the information, and the demurrer thereto.

Under these assignments of error it is argued that the trial court never obtained jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the offense, because the charge contained in the preliminary complaint is materially different from that contained in the information filed in the superior court.

The charging part of the complaint is as follows:

“ * * * Did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously, and without authority of law and with a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
  2. Weatherholt v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1913
  3. Ponoksy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1912
  4. Tudor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. Agent v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ellis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1933
  2. Swarb v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1961
  3. Edmondson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974
  4. Carmack v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1929
  5. Fisher v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API