Breedlove v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Breedlove v. State

1931 OK CR 32, 295 P. 239, 49 Okla. Crim. 428, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 17, 1931

DocketNo. A-7782.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1931 OK CR 32 (Breedlove v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Breedlove v. State, 1931 OK CR 32, 295 P. 239, 49 Okla. Crim. 428, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 32, 295 P. 239, 49 Okla. Crim. 428, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breedlove-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack