Reeves v. Territory

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Reeves v. Territory

1909 OK CR 34, 99 P. 1021, 2 Okla. Crim. 82, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 111

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 23, 1909

DocketNo. 77.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1909 OK CR 34 (Reeves v. Territory) 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

Reeves v. Territory, 1909 OK CR 34, 99 P. 1021, 2 Okla. Crim. 82, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 111 (Okla. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

FURMAN, Presiding Judge,

(after stating the facts as above). Upon the trial of this cause the court instructed the jury •as follows:

*83 “A doubt to justify an acquittal must be a reasonable one- — ■ a doubt for which you can give a reason — and it must arise from a careful and candid' investigation and consideration of all the evidence in the ease, or for want of evidence; and, unless-the doubt does so arise, it will not be sufficient in law to authorize a verdict of' not guilty.”

This instruction has been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the state, in the case of Abbott v. Territory, 20 Okla. 119, 1 Okla. Cr. 1, 94 Pac. 179, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260, and also by this court in the case of Price v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 358, 98 Pac. 447, and in each of these eases it was held to be, error. As this matter was elaborately discussed in the cases above cited, we shall not go over the ground again, further than to say that these eases present our fixed conclusions as to the views therein expressed, and may be considered as decisive of this question.

Another case is pending before us, involving the same questions of law, as are involved in this case, with the exception of the instruction above complained of. As all of these questions of law must be decided in the companion case, it is unnecessary to go over the same questions here.

For error in the instruction- given, the judgment of the lower court is reversed^ and a new trial is granted.

BAKER and DOYLE, Judges, concur.

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

FURMAN, Presiding Judge,

(after stating the facts as above). Upon the trial of this cause the court instructed the jury •as follows:

*83 “A doubt to justify an acquittal must be a reasonable one- — ■ a doubt for which you can give a reason — and it must arise from a careful and candid' investigation and consideration of all the evidence in the ease, or for want of evidence; and, unless-the doubt does so arise, it will not be sufficient in law to authorize a verdict of' not guilty.”

This instruction has been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the state, in the case of Abbott v. Territory, 20 Okla. 119, 1 Okla. Cr. 1, 94 Pac. 179, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260, and also by this court in the case of Price v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 358, 98 Pac. 447, and in each of these eases it was held to be, error. As this matter was elaborately discussed in the cases above cited, we shall not go over the ground again, further than to say that these eases present our fixed conclusions as to the views therein expressed, and may be considered as decisive of this question.

Another case is pending before us, involving the same questions of law, as are involved in this case, with the exception of the instruction above complained of. As all of these questions of law must be decided in the companion case, it is unnecessary to go over the same questions here.

For error in the instruction- given, the judgment of the lower court is reversed^ and a new trial is granted.

BAKER and DOYLE, Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1909 OK CR 34, 99 P. 1021, 2 Okla. Crim. 82, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-territory-oklacrimapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack