Breedlove v. State

G.O. Breedlove v. State.

Breedlove v. State, 1931 OK CR 32, 295 P. 239

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 17, 1931
Docket: No. A-7782.
Judges: Edwards, Davenport, Chappell
Citations: 295 P. 2391931 OK CR 3249 Okla. Crim. 4281931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25

Cited by 7

Opinion of the Court — Edwards

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of *429 Tulsa county on a charge of maiming and was sentenced to serve a term of seven years in the state penitentiary.

The record discloses a state of facts about as follows: On the night of May 15, 1929, about the hour of 12:30 a. m., some one entered the home of Mrs. Eula Condon at Tulsa, and threw nitric acid upon her face and body, destroying the sight of one eye and permanently burning and disfiguring her. The evidence, while entirely circumstantial, tends very strongly to prove the guilt of defendant. If the case were tried according to law, we should not hesitate to hold the evidence sufficient. At the conclusion of the evidence, defendant requested the court to instruct on the law of circumstantial evidence and renewed the request at the time the instructions were read. The request was denied by the court.

It has been many times held by this court that where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, it is error for the court, when properly requested, to refuse an instruction upon the law of circumstantial evidence. Rutherford v. U. S., 1 Okla. Cr. 194 , 95 Pac. 753 ; Bock v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 313 , 246 Pac. 642 ; Moore v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 277 , 246 Pac. 648 ; Hess v. State, 35 Okla. Cr. 410 , 250 Pac. 938 .

There is no excuse for a trial judge to deny a request for an instruction upon a proposition so well settled as this. A county attorney, under such circumstances, should join in a request that such instruction be given, if the trial court is not informed. This court is very loath to reverse cases such as this, but some regard must be had for settled decisions. Cases may be presented, depending entirely on circumstantial evidence, where the facts are admitted or the conflict in the evidence so inconsequential that this court may say that the refusal to give the instruc *430 tion could not have affected the verdict; we can hardly say that is the condition of the record here.

The case is reversed.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts7

Relies on it most ⓘ

Long v. State1943 OK CR 86, 140 P.2d 600
Knight v. State1941 OK CR 140, 118 P.2d 256
Teague v. State1935 OK CR 146, 52 P.2d 91
Hammons v. State156 P.2d 379 (Okla. Crim. App. 1945)
Matin v. State1958 OK CR 113, 333 P.2d 585
Ayers v. State1932 OK CR 36, 7 P.2d 919

Most recent

Matin v. State1958 OK CR 113, 333 P.2d 585
Hammons v. State156 P.2d 379 (Okla. Crim. App. 1945)
Long v. State1943 OK CR 86, 140 P.2d 600
Knight v. State1941 OK CR 140, 118 P.2d 256
Birkley v. State1939 OK CR 45, 90 P.2d 464
Teague v. State1935 OK CR 146, 52 P.2d 91

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.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Bock v. State, 1926 OK CR 241, 246 P. 642	8
	Hess v. State, 1926 OK CR 404, 250 P. 938	5
	Moore v. State, 1926 OK CR 223, 246 P. 648	4
	Rutherford v. United States, 1908 OK 106, 95 P. 753	9

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list