Crow v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Crow v. State

1910 OK CR 29, 106 P. 556, 3 Okla. Crim. 428, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 167

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 25, 1910

DocketNo. A-51.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1910 OK CR 29 (Crow 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

Crow v. State, 1910 OK CR 29, 106 P. 556, 3 Okla. Crim. 428, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 167 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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