Hildebrandt v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtMatson, J.
Among other questions involved in this appeal, it is contended that the statute under which the defendant was convicted is unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) That the law does not create the second offense a crime any greater than a first violation, and, therefore, because there is no crime created by the statute to be known as a second offense or violation, the second offense can be no greater than the first in point of punishment, and, as the first offense is a misdemeanor, a second conviction must likewise be, in the absence of any statute defining what shall constitute a second…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Graham v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Brown v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1913
- People v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- State v. FindlingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Kelly v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- McHenry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1937
- Edwards v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1930
- Harrigill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1950
- Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1934
- Hildebrandt v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.