## Facts

- Cecil Proctor was charged in Oklahoma County with “keeping a place” (a two-story brick building) with the intent and purpose of unlawfully selling, bartering, and giving away intoxicating liquor under a 1913 Oklahoma statute.
- The charging information alleged only that Proctor kept the building with an unlawful intent to traffic in liquor.
- The information did not allege that Proctor possessed liquor at the place or that any liquor was manufactured, sold, bartered, or given away there.
- Proctor demurred, asserting the information did not state a public offense and that the statute was unconstitutional.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer; Proctor was convicted and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Legislature may criminalize an otherwise lawful act (keeping a place) based solely on an unexecuted unlawful intent, without any overt act manifesting that intent.
2. Whether an information alleging only “keeping a place” plus unlawful intent, without alleging an overt act, states all essential elements of a crime.
3. Whether punishing unexecuted intent violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded with directions to discharge Proctor.
- The court held the statute was unconstitutional insofar as it punished keeping a place based only on unexecuted unlawful intent, without an overt act.
- The court held the information was legally insufficient because it alleged no overt act resulting from, or manifesting, the alleged unlawful intent; the demurrer should have been sustained.

## Legal Principles

- A guilty intention, unconnected with an overt act or outward manifestation, is not punishable.
- An unexecuted intent to violate the law is not a crime.
- Criminal liability generally requires the concurrence of an unlawful act (actus reus) and a guilty intent (mens rea).
- A lawful act involving use of property cannot be transformed into a crime solely by alleging an internal unlawful purpose.
- A charging information must allege an overt act that connects the defendant’s intent to prohibited conduct; alleging “keeping a place” plus intent, without more, fails to state a public offense.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Proctor’s conviction because the prosecution alleged only a lawful act coupled with an unexecuted intent, and both constitutional limits and basic criminal-law doctrine require an overt act before the state may impose punishment.


Proctor v. State, 176 P. 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 1918)