Criminal Appeals in Oklahoma

Sullateskee V. the State of Oklahoma, No. A-14062 Facts: In 1967, Gladys Juanita Sullateskee was charged in Oklahoma Municipal Court with possessing a total of 556 bottles of whiskey for sale without the proper issued state permits (via the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board). During the proceedings a jury trial was waived and the case was sent to a judge. He determined that Sullateskee was guilty of possession with the intent to distribute and fined her $25.00.

Sullateskee is appealing the decision based upon the fact that the prosecution failed to show the whiskey actually belonged to the defendant. This is because she was a waitress who worked at the establishment and is not the owner. She argues that intent is not the same as actually conducting the crimes she is charged with. During the trial, the prosecution had only one witness who was the investigating officer. He testified that Sullateskee was not the owner of this establishment and was one of several waitresses who worked there.

Furthermore, he indicated that several people were drunk and there were no whiskey bottles out in the open when they raided the establishment. This is problematic, as Sullateskee claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, she feels that the prosecution is targeting her based upon the fact that she works at the establishment.

Evidence of this can be seen with the answers provided during cross examination with the officer saying, " Q Who was in charge of the premises when you arrived that evening, Officer Glanz? A. Mr. Sullateskee. Q Had you ever been in that place, any time prior? A Yes sir. Q Who was in charge of the premises on those times prior? A Different barmaids. Q Is Mrs. Sullateskee a barmaid, or the owner, if you know? A She is a barmaid.

By the Court: Do you know who the owner is? A. Yes, sir, the owner was R.E. Herrington. Q Was there anything on the wall that would indicate they had a license? A No, sir, they were not holders of Federal or State alcohol Beverage license. Q Whatever happened to Herrington? A His beer license was revoked, and the Bar was closed. Q By the County Judge? A Yes, sir." ("Sullateskee V.

the State of Oklahoma,"1967) To make matters worse, Sullateskee was never in possession of the key to the storage room and the police had to break the lock to gain access to it. The defense is arguing that Sullateskee should have never been charged and fined based. This is upon the fact that she is an employee of the establishment. ("Sullateskee V. the State of Oklahoma,"1967) Holding: The Court of Appeals determined that the lower court acted inappropriately with its interpretation of the law.

This is because they were assuming that intent was the same as actually engaging in these activities. When in reality, it is used to establish probable cause versus a conviction. (U.S. Liquor Law, 2015) Rationale: They based their decision on the language of the law with the Appeals Court saying, "A specific criminal intent is not presumed, and conviction cannot be had on the basis of an imputed intent.

The general rule, stated infra § 34, that a criminal intention will be presumed from the commission of the unlawful act does not apply. No intent in law or mere presumption, differing from the intent in fact, can be allowed to supply the place of proof of the requisite specific intent. If a specific intent is required by statute to constitute a crime, such intent enters into the nature of the act itself and must be alleged and proved.

Admittedly, specific intent may be, and most generally is, proved by circumstantial evidence. However, in the instant case even though one admits that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show the intent, on the part of someone, to sell the alcoholic beverages, such is not applicable to this defendant. In the instant case the crime charged was: possession with intent to sell. However, there was no positive showing that.