Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 7 Okla. Crim. 698
  • 120 P. 1123
  • 1912 OK CR 243
  • 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 24
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Feb 3, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Cubiam
On the bench
Cubiam
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 44.0%

The opinion

PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kay county at the April, 1911, term on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and on the 11th day of May following adjudged to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of ninety days. The proof on the part of the state was by one witness, who is contradicted by witnesses for the defense .and by the defendant himself. Among other instructions, the court gave the following:

“If you find that any witness has wilfully and knowingly testified falsely to any material question, you are then at liberty to disregard the whole of such witness’ testimony, except so far as the same may be corroborated by other credible witnesses.’’

Such an instruction as this has been condemned by this court in many cases. In Bea v. State, 3 Okla. Or. 269, the objection to this instruction is pointed out and made clear. The opinion in that case was filed on the 7th day of December, 1909. Just why many of the county courts of this state persist in giving instructions of this kind after they have been so often condemned, and so long condemned, is rather puzzling. It is more than two years since this doctrine was announced, and it has been uniformly followed. It is not the purpose of this court to assume a hostile attitude toward the inferior courts in any sense, but the people of this state are entitled to have the law properly administered. It costs the taxpayers of the various counties large sums of money to defray expenses of these prosecutions, and oftentimes guilty men are allowed to escape punishment by reason of errors 'that are inexcusable in the light of precedents that are before the trial courts for their guidance. In some cases this court might not feel called upon to reverse a case solely .upon an objection to a particular instruction, on the theory that the evidence is conclusive as to the guilt of the accused. But in this case the great weight of the testimony is against the contention of the state. ■ At least as to numbers of witnesses testifying. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.