Summary
The defendant was convicted of possessing whisky with the unlawful intent to sell it. The Oklahoma criminal appellate court held that the state improperly introduced evidence attacking the defendant's character and failed to present competent evidence of the required unlawful intent, reversed the judgment, and remanded with directions to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the unlawful intent to sell, an essential element of the charged offense.
- Whether the trial court improperly admitted rebuttal testimony attacking the defendant's character and reputation as a bootlegger.
Holdings
- The State may not attack a criminal defendant's character unless the defendant first places his character in evidence by introducing evidence of good character.
- The conviction could not stand because the record contained no competent evidence tending to prove the unlawful intent required as an essential element of the charged offense.
Key quotations
“It has been repeatedly decided by this court that the state cannot attack the character of a defendant, unless he puts his character in evidence by introducing evidence of good character.” (325-26)
“A person accused of crime is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, conducted according to the established principles of law, the most important of which is that the verdict of the jury shall be founded only upon competent evidence.” (326)
“We are also of the opinion that there was no competent evidence tending to show the unlawful intent which is an essential element of the offense charged.” (326)
Factual background
Officers searched Pitcher's home in Henryetta and found approximately three quarts to one gallon of whisky under the steps. Pitcher admitted possessing the whisky but testified that he did not possess it for the purpose of violating the law and had never sold whisky. In rebuttal, the State elicited testimony concerning reports and alleged reputation that Pitcher was a bootlegger, despite Pitcher not having placed his character in issue.
Procedural history
A jury in the lower court found Pitcher guilty and imposed a $500 fine and six months' confinement in the county jail. The trial court denied his motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment on the verdict. Pitcher appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of incompetent and prejudicial character evidence.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded with directions to dismiss.