Ford v. State
Decision Date | 14 November 1931 |
Docket Number | A-8123. |
Citation | 5 P.2d 170,52 Okla.Crim. 321 |
Parties | FORD v. STATE. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The courts take judicial notice of the boundaries of the state and counties therein, and the geographical location of cities and towns within the state.
The venue of a criminal act does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the defendant desires special instructions in the trial of a criminal case, he is required by the provisions of our criminal procedure to present in writing to the court the instructions desired, and it is not error for the trial court to omit to instruct upon every possible question under the defendant's theory of the case, when he has not requested such instructions.
Where there is any competent evidence from which the jury may reasonably and logically find the guilt of the defendant, the weight and value of such evidence is for the jury, and its verdict will not be disturbed for insufficiency of the evidence.
Appeal from District Court, Greer County; T. P. Clay, Judge.
Grace Ford was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
Williams & Sasseen, of Mangum, for plaintiff in error.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, for convenience referred to as the defendant, was by information jointly charged with Alice Ford of murder, was tried separately and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of four years. Motion for new trial was filed, considered, overruled, exceptions saved, and the defendant appeals.
Lester Lowe, called on behalf of the state, in substance stated he remembered the occasion of a girl being killed at Mangum on the 29th day of December, 1929; he was acquainted with the defendant Grace Ford and her sister Alice Ford. Mary Johnson called to a negro by the name of Catalac to go home, and he said he was not ready to go home; deceased and Catalac began to quarrel, and Alice Ford said to put them out of the house the defendant said "Yes," a scuffle ensued, and defendant stabbed the deceased in the back with a knife; deceased was then hit by Alice Ford with a poker. The defendant and deceased clinched in a scuffle around the room, and went out of the door and fell on the ground; Alice Ford hit her again with the iron poker; the deceased died a short while after she got out of the house. Witness stated he did not know who hit the first lick.
It was further shown by the state's witness that there were several parties at the home of Alice Ford where the trouble took place; that deceased tried to get Catalac to go home, and he did not want to go; they got to quarreling, and Catalac went on the outside of the house and picked up a brick and tried to get the deceased to come out. The defendant was in the room at the time, and tried to get Frank Morris to put them out; the deceased asked the defendant, "Why don't you put me out?" the defendant asked her who she was talking to, and she said she was talking to the defendant; the defendant and deceased advanced toward each other; the defendant fell over on the bed and got up immediately; they could see the defendant using her hand toward the deceased, but could not see anything in her hand; Frank Morris pushed the defendant and deceased out of the house; Alice Ford hit the deceased with an iron poker.
The defendant, testifying in her own behalf, stated:
Other witnesses testified in behalf of the defendant, whose testimony was in substance the same as the defendants.
The defendant has assigned seven errors as grounds for reversal of this case. The first question argued by the defendant is error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the evidence. Under this assignment the defendant insists that the evidence is insufficient to establish the venue. The testimony of Lester Lowe shows that he remembered when Mary Johnson was killed in Mangum, in December, 1929; witness stated he did not know the name of the street, but it was down there in the colored section of the town in a rooming house back of the Cameron Lumber Company. Other witnesses testifying saw the defendant and deceased in the city...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Payne v. State
...Okl.Cr. 192, 57 P.2d 267; Dismore v. State, 60 Okl.Cr. 346, 44 P.2d 894; Flannigan v. State, 55 Okl.Cr. 328, 29 P.2d 989; Ford v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 321, 5 P.2d 170; Rodgers v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 363, 297 P. 823; Womble v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 108, 296 P. 515; Burton v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 33, 295......
-
Fields v. State
...Okl.Cr. 463, 88 P.2d 907; Adams v. State, 62 Okl.Cr. 167, 70 P.2d 821; Carpenter v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 76, 33 P.2d 637. In Ford v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 321, 5 P.2d 170, 171, court held: 'It is not error for the trial court to omit to instruct upon every possible question under defendant's theor......
-
Dickey v. State, A-11836
...the defendant may have been prejudiced by the instruction complained of.' Carpenter v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 76, 33 P.2d 637; Ford v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 321, 5 P.2d 170, 171. We are unable to see from the jury's verdict herein that the defendant was prejudiced by the court's failure to instruct ......
-
Chapman v. State
... ... State, 56 Okl.Cr. 76, 33 P.2d 637, 639: ... 'If, ... when the court instructed the jury, the defendant desired an ... additional instruction upon his theory of the case it was his ... duty to have prepared the same and requested the court to ... give it. In Ford v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 321, 325, 5 ... P.2d 170, 171, this court held: ... "If ... the defendant desires special instructions in the trial of ... a criminal case, he is required by the provisions of our ... criminal procedure to present in writing to the court [84 ... ...