TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boyd v. State

Pim Boyd v. State.

Boyd v. State, 1910 OK CR 87, 108 P. 431
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 26, 1910
Docket
No. A-444.
Judges
Doyle, Richardson, 'Judge
Citations
108 P. 4311910 OK CR 873 Okla. Crim. 6841910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 224
Disposition
Order that the proceedings abate.
Syllabus
1. ABATEMENT — Death of Defendant. In a criminal action, the purpose of the proceeding' ¡being to punish the defendant in person, the action must necessarily abate upon his death. 2. FINES — Death of Defendant — Abatement of Prosecution. A judgment of conviction against a defendant pending on appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeals is abated by the death of the defendant, and cannot be enforced against his personal representative. (Syllabus 'by the Court.)
Summary
Appeal from Pottawatomie County Courtj E. D. Beasor. Judge. Pirn Boyd was convicted of an illegal sale of liquor, and brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Doyle

DOYLE, Judge.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Pottawatomie county for a violation of the prohibition law and sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and costs and be confined for 30 days in the county jail, and, failing to pay said fine and costs, that he be further so confined one day for each dollar thereof. From which judgment he appealed by filing in this court November 25, 1909, his petition in error with case-made attached.

Since,the appeal was taken, and before the final submission of the cause, to wit, February 22, 1910, he departed this life. His death having been suggested, the proceedings abate, and no decision upon the merits of the appeal will be rendered. A civil action does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survive or continue, but in a criminal action the sole purpose of the proceedings is to enforce the criminal law and punish th,e person found guilty of a violation thereof. The personal representative of the- deceased is not responsible for the alleged violation of the law by the defendant during his lifetime, and cannot be required to satisfy the judgment rendered against him. It is only the person adjudged guilty who can be punished, and a judgment cannot be enforced when the only, subject matter upon which it can operate has ceased to exist.

O’Sullivan v. People, 144 Ill. 604 . 32 N. E. 192 , 20 L. R. A. 143:

Herrington v. State, 53 Ga. 552 . In each of these eases the defendant died after the cause had been submitted to the appellate court for decision, and the right to continuo them in the name of a personal representative of the deceased was denied; the courts refusing to proceed further in the matter or pronounce any decision in the case.

In the case of March v. State, 5 Tex. App. 450, the court said:

“We are of opinion, then, that in a criminal prosecution, when the accused has taken an appeal in the manner prescribed by law, the proceeding is still pending and undetermined until the appeal shall have been decided; and that, in ease the appellant die whilst the appeal is pending and undetermined, the prosecution *686 or the criminal action does not survive, but, on the death of the appellant pending the appeal, the posecution abates in ioio, whatever be the judgment appealed from.”

In a criminal action the purpose of the proceeding 'being to punish the defendant in person, the action must necessarily abate upon his death.

It is therefore considered that the proceedings in this action do abate, and it is so ordered.

.FURMAN, Presiding Judge, and RICHARDSON,'Judge, concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1911: 11913: 11914: 11916: 11917: 11919: 11921: 11927: 11929: 11934: 11936: 11940: 11967: 12006: 219112026peak 2006 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Devin142 P.3d 599 (Wash. 2006)
  2. State v. Devin158 Wash. 2d 157 (2006)
  3. Hartwell v. State423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967)
  4. State v. Free260 P. 173 (Wyo. 1927)
  5. Commonwealth (To Use, Ap.) v. Embody17 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
  6. Alexander v. State1919 OK CR 145, 180 P. 393

Most recent

  1. State v. Devin142 P.3d 599 (Wash. 2006)
  2. State v. Devin158 Wash. 2d 157 (2006)
  3. Hartwell v. State423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967)
  4. Commonwealth (To Use, Ap.) v. Embody17 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
  5. People v. Rogas161 Misc. 32 (1936)
  6. State v. Kriechbaum258 N.W. 110 (Iowa 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
O'Sullivan v. People, 20 L.R.A. 143 (Ill. 1892) 32
Herrington v. State, 53 Ga. 552 (1875) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list