Crow v. State

Bruce Crow v. State.

Crow v. State, 1910 OK CR 29, 106 P. 556

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 25, 1910
Docket: No. A-51.
Judges: Owen, Furman, Doyle
Citations: 106 P. 5561910 OK CR 293 Okla. Crim. 4281910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 167
Disposition: Confession of error filed, and case reversed.

Cited by 7

Syllabus

INSTRUCTIONS — Credibility of Defendant. An instruction, which says: “The defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf. Tou will judge the defendant as an interested witness. You are not to disbelieve him merely because he is the defendant in t)he case, but you will apply the rules of judging the credibility of witnesses to the defendant’s testimony,, and then you will give his testimony such credit as you think it entitled to, and no more” — improperly calls to the attention of the jury the interest the defendant has in the result of the trial, and is reversible error. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Summary

Error from Sequoyah County Court; W. N. Littlejohn, Judge. The plaintiff in error, Bruce Crow, was tried in the county court of Sequoyah county in September, 1908, charged with the violation of the game .and fish law. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, a fee of $25 to the Game Warden, and the costs of the prosecution. The case is before us on appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Owen

OWEN, Judge.

The Attorney General has filed his written confession of error, confessing that the lower court erred in giving instruction No. 9, which is as follows:

“The defendant -is a competent witness in his own behalf. You will judge the defendant as an interested witness. You are not to disbelieve him merely because he is the defendant in the case, but you will apply the rules of judging the credibility of witnesses to the defendant’s testimony, ánd then you will give his testimony such credit as you think it entitled to, nnd no more.”

Under the uniform decisions of this court the confession of error must be sustained. A similar instruction was condemned *429 in the following named eases:

Fletcher v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 300 , 101 Pac. 599 ;

Green v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 55 , 101 Pac. 112 ;

Hendrix v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 240 , 101 Pac. 125 ; and Reed v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 652 , 103 Pac. 371 .

The confession of error is sustained, and the ease reversed, with direction to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

FURMAN, 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 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Brown v. State1913 OK CR 122, 132 P. 359
Culpepper v. State1910 OK CR 168, 111 P. 679
State v. Bester167 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1969)
Manning v. State1911 OK CR 112, 115 P. 612
State v. Orr24 P.2d 679 (Idaho 1933) · Dissent
State v. Rogers163 P. 912 (Idaho 1917)

Most recent

State v. Bester167 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1969)
State v. Orr24 P.2d 679 (Idaho 1933) · Dissent
State v. Rogers163 P. 912 (Idaho 1917)
Brown v. State1913 OK CR 122, 132 P. 359
Manning v. State1911 OK CR 112, 115 P. 612
Culpepper v. State1910 OK CR 168, 111 P. 679

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
	Fletcher v. State, 1909 OK CR 59, 101 P. 599	59
	Hendrix v. United States, 1909 OK CR 54, 101 P. 125	20
	Green v. United States, 1909 OK CR 29, 101 P. 112	16
	Reed v. United States, 1909 OK CR 100, 103 P. 371	12

`/`	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