Lexplug logoLexplug

Proctor v. State

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma
176 P. 771 (1918)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute that criminalizes an unexecuted intent, even when combined with a lawful act such as 'keeping a place,' is unconstitutional because a crime requires both a criminal intent and an overt act taken in furtherance of that intent.


Facts:

  • Proctor, the plaintiff in error, kept a two-story brick building in Oklahoma county.
  • The State of Oklahoma alleged that Proctor kept this building with the intent to unlawfully sell, barter, and give away alcoholic beverages.
  • The information filed against Proctor did not allege that he was in possession of any intoxicating liquors.
  • The information did not allege that Proctor had committed any overt act, such as selling, bartering, or giving away liquor, to carry out his alleged unlawful intent.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Oklahoma filed an information against the plaintiff in error in the district court of Oklahoma county.
  • The defendant interposed a demurrer to the information, arguing the underlying statute was unconstitutional.
  • The trial court overruled the demurrer.
  • Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of the charged offense.
  • The defendant, as plaintiff in error, appealed the conviction to the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an Oklahoma statute that criminalizes 'keeping a place with the intention of' unlawfully selling liquor, without requiring an overt act in furtherance of that intent, violate the fundamental principles of criminal law by punishing intent alone?


Opinions:

Majority - Galbraith, Special Judge

Yes. A statute criminalizing the keeping of a place with the mere intent to sell intoxicating liquors is unconstitutional because it attempts to punish a person for a guilty thought without any corresponding unlawful act. It is a fundamental principle of law that to constitute a crime, there must be a concurrence of both a 'vicious will' (criminal intent) and an 'unlawful act' (an overt act). The act of 'keeping a place' is itself innocent, and an unexecuted intent is not punishable because no temporal tribunal can know a person's thoughts without some outward manifestation. Punishing intent alone runs counter to the foundational principles of law and due process, as the law does not concern itself with a mere guilty intent unconnected with an overt act. The court also noted the strange anomaly that the statute made the mere intent to sell liquor a felony, while a separate statute made the completed act of keeping a place where liquor is actually sold only a misdemeanor.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the foundational principle of actus reus, or the requirement of a guilty act, in American criminal law. It establishes that a legislature cannot criminalize mere intent, even if that intent is tied to a lawful activity like property ownership. The ruling serves as a significant check on the state's police power, preventing the prosecution of individuals for 'thought crimes' or for what they might be planning to do in the future. This precedent solidifies the due process protection that requires the government to prove a defendant has taken a concrete, voluntary step to commit a crime before imposing criminal liability.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Proctor v. State (1918) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Proctor v. State