Crow v. State

• Decision Date: 25 January 1910
• Citation: 106 P. 556,3 Okla.Crim. 428,1910 OK CR 29
• Parties: CROW v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

106 P. 556

3 Okla.Crim. 428, 1910 OK CR 29

CROW v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

January 25, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

An instruction, which says: "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, and then you will give his testimony such credit as you think it entitled to, and no more"--improperly calls to the attention of the jury the interest the defendant has in the result of the trial, and is reversible error.

Error from Sequoyah County Court; W. N. Littlejohn, Judge.

Bruce Crow was convicted of violating the game and fish law, and brings error. Confession of error filed, and case reversed.

T. F. Shackelford, for plaintiff in error.

Charles West, Atty. Gen., and Chas. L. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OWEN, J.

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, and then you will give his testimony such credit as you think it entitled to, and no more." Under the uniform decisions of this court the confession of error must be sustained. A similar instruction was condemned in the following named cases: Fletcher v. State, 101 P. 599; Green v. U. S., 101 P. 112; Hendrix v. U. S., 101 P. 125; and Reed v. U. S., 103 P. 371.

The confession of error is sustained, and the case reversed, with direction to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial.

FURMAN, P.J., and DOYLE, J., concur.