Sample v. State
Buster Sample v. State.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
*431 OWEN, Judge.
The record in' this case discloses that the jury were permitted to separate after the case had been finally submitted to them, and before a verdict had been agreed upon. It appears that they were instructed by the court .to return to the jury room after supper and consider of their vedict, and, if they were unable to agree after a reasonable time, they might separate for the night and return to the jury room on the following morning for further consideration. And it appears that' they were unable to agree during the night, and 'did separate and return to the jury room the following morning, after which the verdict was agreed upon and returned into court. The Attorney General has filed his written confession of' error in this case, confessing that under section 6858 of the statute (Snyder’s Comp. Laws 1909), and the rule announced in Bilton v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 566 , 99 Pac. 163 , the action of the court in permitting the jury to separate was error The confession of error is sustained, and case reversed and remanded.
FUEMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.