TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mulkins v. United States

Wm. Mulkins v. the United States

Mulkins v. United States, 61 P. 925 (Okla. 1900)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 30, 1900
Judges
Buewell, McAtee
Citations
61 P. 92510 Okla. 2881900 Okla. LEXIS 23
Syllabus
Criminal Law — Information^-Veriflcation of, When Imnficient. A. verittcation on information and belief to a complaint in a criminal case is not sufficient to authorize a court to put the defendant upon trial for the offense charged therein. Such complaint should be sworn to positively or the facts upon which the warrant should issue ought to be presented to the court by affidavit or by competent evidence. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from the District Court of Canadian County; before John L. McAtee, District Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Buewell

Opinion of the court by Buewell, J.:

The appellant, William Mulleins, was charged by complaint in the district court of Canadian county with the crime of cutting and removing timber from the Caddo Indian reservation. The complaint was verified by Hon. B. S. McGuire, assistant U. S. Attorney, on information and belief only. When the case was called for trial the defendant, by his counsel, objected to the introduction of any evidence, because of the insufficiency of the complaint. After t-rial, conviction and sentence the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, and after it was overruled by the court he interposed a *289 motion in arrest of judgment, which was also denied. Exceptions were saved to each of these rulings and an appeal taken by transcript to this court.

The appellant presents just one question to this court, viz: the sufficiency of the verification of the complaint. A verification, on information and belief, 'to a complaint in a criminal case is not sufficient to authorize a court to put the defendant upon trial for the offense charged therein. Such complaint should be «worn to positively, or the facts upon which the warrant should issue ought to he presented to the court by a positive affidavit, or by competent evidence.

(Miller v. U. S.

7 Ok. 315; 57 Pac. 386 .)

The complaint was not sufficient. For the reason herein stated the case is reversed and remanded, at the cost of the appellee, and the defendant will be held to await the action of the district court of Canadian county, and said court is hereby directed to grant leave to the United States to properly verify the complaint heretofore filed, or to file a new complaint for such offense.

McAtee, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 21913: 119092026peak 1909 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. De Graff v. State1909 OK CR 82, 103 P. 538
  2. Salter v. State1909 OK CR 75, 102 P. 719
  3. Ex Parte Owen1913 OK CR 293, 136 P. 137

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Owen1913 OK CR 293, 136 P. 137
  2. De Graff v. State1909 OK CR 82, 103 P. 538
  3. Salter v. State1909 OK CR 75, 102 P. 719

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Windsor v. Miner, 57 P. 386 (Cal. 1899) 25

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