Yates v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Yates v. State

1913 OK CR 374, 136 P. 1199, 10 Okla. Crim. 666, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 375

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 16, 1913

DocketNo. A-1845.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 374 (Yates 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

Yates v. State, 1913 OK CR 374, 136 P. 1199, 10 Okla. Crim. 666, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 375 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, J. E. Yates was convicted in the county court of Payne county in June, 1912, on a charge of libel and his punishment fixed at a fine of $350 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of three montlis. Among other grounds for reversal by counsel in this ease is the following instruction given by the court: “If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every material allegation of the information to be true, except the charge in such information that defendant by such publication intended to charge and did charge that R. E. Grant is an adulterer, then you should acquit the defendant, unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the article so published contained charges other than adultery concerning the said R. E. Grant which were not true and which were libelous within the definition heretofore given you." This instruction was calculated to confuse the jury and is meaningless. *667 It should not have been given in the form presented. It is the duty of the court to g'ivij clear cut, concise instructions. After a careful reading of this record we are .of opinion that the' time of the court and jury and the money of the taxpayers of Payne county could be used to better advantage than-in the prosecution of such eases as this appears to be. Apparently there is little merit to either side of this controversy. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, J. E. Yates was convicted in the county court of Payne county in June, 1912, on a charge of libel and his punishment fixed at a fine of $350 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of three montlis. Among other grounds for reversal by counsel in this ease is the following instruction given by the court: “If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every material allegation of the information to be true, except the charge in such information that defendant by such publication intended to charge and did charge that R. E. Grant is an adulterer, then you should acquit the defendant, unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the article so published contained charges other than adultery concerning the said R. E. Grant which were not true and which were libelous within the definition heretofore given you." This instruction was calculated to confuse the jury and is meaningless. *667 It should not have been given in the form presented. It is the duty of the court to g'ivij clear cut, concise instructions. After a careful reading of this record we are .of opinion that the' time of the court and jury and the money of the taxpayers of Payne county could be used to better advantage than-in the prosecution of such eases as this appears to be. Apparently there is little merit to either side of this controversy. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 374, 136 P. 1199, 10 Okla. Crim. 666, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.