Stricker v. State

• Decision Date: 12 February 1924
• Docket Number: A-4612.
• Citation: 222 P. 704,26 Okla.Crim. 141
• Parties: STRICKER v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

222 P. 704

26 Okla.Crim. 141

STRICKER v. STATE.

No. A-4612.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

February 12, 1924

Syllabus by the Court.

A trial judge has the right to ask any witness, on his own motion such questions as will tend to elicit the truth, but they should be asked in a spirit of fairness, and in such a way as will not tend to prejudice the jury against the rights of either the state or the defendant.

No trial judge has the right to indicate to the jury, by word or action, his opinion as to the merits of a case being tried or as to the credibility of any witness examined.

In a prosecution for unlawful manufacturing of wine, evidence considered, and held insufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction.

Appeal from County Court, Woodward County; H. B. King, Judge.

George Stricker was convicted of manufacturing wine, and he appeals. Reversed.

Chas R. Alexander, of Woodward, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and H. W. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOYLE J.

The plaintiff in error was tried upon an information charging that he did unlawfully manufacture 6 gallons of wine by pressing the juice from grapes and adding sugar to the juice and by process of fermentation manufacture said wine.

The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty, and fixed his punishment at a fine of $250 and confinement for 60 days in the county jail. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction.

The assignments of error relate to the conduct of the court in the examination of the defendant instructions given to the jury and the sufficiency of the evidence taken as a whole to sustain the verdict.

The Attorney General concedes that the conviction cannot be sustained, and after a careful reading of the record we are convinced that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction, and we adopt the confession of error as the opinion of the court. It is as follows:

"The record in this case discloses that the plaintiff in error was the husband of a wife who was affected with tuberculosis; that her physician advised her to procure and use wine as a tissue builder and stimulant; that her husband went to a vineyard some 10 or 12 miles away and purchased 75 pounds of grapes and brought same to his home; and that out of said grapes so purchased by the plaintiff in error, the wife manufactured about 6 gallons of grape wine. Later on the sheriff and some of his deputies searched the premises and confiscated the wine, and caused to be filed against the plaintiff in error the information upon which he was convicted, and from which judgment and sentence this appeal is prosecuted. During the progress of the trial, the following dialogue was had between the court and the plaintiff in error:

'By the Court: Q. You say that you bought the grapes for your wife? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did she do all the work

...