Hobbs v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hobbs v. State

1913 OK CR 151, 132 P. 822, 9 Okla. Crim. 598, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 14, 1913

DocketNo. A-1587.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1913 OK CR 151 (Hobbs 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

Hobbs v. State, 1913 OK CR 151, 132 P. 822, 9 Okla. Crim. 598, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

FURMAN, J.

The instructions of the court are divided into separate paragraphs, each of which is numbered and signed by the court. The ninth and last instruction is as follows: “You are to consider these instructions as a whole, and not be bound by any particular instruction or part of 'an instruction.” To this instruction appellant excepted. What the court doubtless intended was to inform the jury that it *599 was their duty to consider all of the various instructions given in connection with each other, and that they were not to act upon any one instruction to the exclusion of the other instructions, but that they should be harmonized with each other. But this is not what the court told the jury. On the contrary, they were informed that “they would not be bound by any particular instruction or part of an instruction.” This entirely eliminated the instruction upon the question of reasonable doubt, which is statutory, and by which juries must be bound, and to which the defendant is entitled in every criminal trial. Courts should exercise some care in the preparation of their instructions, and endeavor ¡as far as possible to make them so plain and explicit that men who are not learned in the law will not reasonably be misled thereby.

For the error above pointed out the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for .a new trial.

ARMSTRONG, P. J\, and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

FURMAN, J.

The instructions of the court are divided into separate paragraphs, each of which is numbered and signed by the court. The ninth and last instruction is as follows: “You are to consider these instructions as a whole, and not be bound by any particular instruction or part of 'an instruction.” To this instruction appellant excepted. What the court doubtless intended was to inform the jury that it *599 was their duty to consider all of the various instructions given in connection with each other, and that they were not to act upon any one instruction to the exclusion of the other instructions, but that they should be harmonized with each other. But this is not what the court told the jury. On the contrary, they were informed that “they would not be bound by any particular instruction or part of an instruction.” This entirely eliminated the instruction upon the question of reasonable doubt, which is statutory, and by which juries must be bound, and to which the defendant is entitled in every criminal trial. Courts should exercise some care in the preparation of their instructions, and endeavor ¡as far as possible to make them so plain and explicit that men who are not learned in the law will not reasonably be misled thereby.

For the error above pointed out the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for .a new trial.

ARMSTRONG, P. J\, and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 151, 132 P. 822, 9 Okla. Crim. 598, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack