Villines v. State, A--16722

Decision Date16 December 1971
Docket NumberNo. A--16722,A--16722
PartiesVernon D. VILLINES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hubert Hargrave, Wewoka, for plaintiff in error.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Sondra Leah Fogley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Vernon D. Villines, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court of Seminole County, Oklahoma with the crime of Murder. He was convicted for the offense of Manslaughter in the Second Degree, and his punishment was fixed at two (2) years imprisonment; from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

This cause must be reversed for the reason that the trial court, over the objection of the defendant, gave the following instruction:

'INSTRUCTION NUMBER THIRTY

'Under the law of this State, the defendant has the right to take the stand to testify in his own behalf and such testimony goes before you same as the testimony of any other witness in the case, to be weighed and considered according to the same rule; but the fact that he does not testify cannot be considered by you to his prejudice and does not create any presumption of guilt as against him, and should not have influence upon you arriving at your verdict.

'It is your duty, under the law, not to comment on, refer to, or in any manner consider this fact in arriving at any verdict you may return in this cause as against the defendant.'

In Brannin v. State, Okl.Cr., 375 P.2d 276, the trial court stated the following instruction:

"You are instructed that in this prosecution, the defendant has been proper not to take the stand and testify in his own behalf. The law permits a defendant who is charged with the commission of a crime to testify in his own behalf, yet he is under no obligation to do so, and his failure to testify as a witness in his own behalf shall not create any presumption of guilt against him."

In discussing this instruction, we stated:

'While under the authority of Russell v. State, 17 Okl.Cr. 164, 194 P. 242, this court has held that the instruction above referred to may constitute reversible error if proper objection is interposed thereto and exception to the rule of the court made thereon and set forth in defendant's motion for new trial as grounds for granting the same, the court went on to say that the error was not of such fundamental character as to require reversal in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Lakeside v. Oregon
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1978
    ...231 N.W.2d 654 (1975); Gross v. State, 261 Ind. 489, 306 N.E.2d 371 (1974); State v. White, 285 A.2d 832 (Me.1972); Villines v. State, 492 P.2d 343 (Okl.Crim.App.1971); State v. Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1970); Russell v. State, 240 Ark. 97, 398 S.W.2d 213 (1966); People v. Horrigan, 25......
  • Hardaway v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • October 13, 1987
    ...e.g., Commonwealth v. Buiel, 391 Mass. 744, 463 N.E.2d 1172 (1984); Russell v. State, 240 Ark. 97, 398 S.W.2d 213 (1966); Villines v. State, 492 P.2d 343 (Okla.1971); State v. Kimble, 176 N.W.2d 864 (Ia.1970); People v. Lee, 44 Ill.App.3d 43, 2 Ill.Dec. 668, 357 N.E.2d 888 (1976). 2 For cas......
  • State v. Lakeside
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1977
    ...indication of that in the opinion. 4 The Court of Appeals found that Gross v. State, 261 Ind. 489, 306 N.E.2d 371 (1974); Villines v. State, 492 P.2d 343 (Okl.Cr.1971); and People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 61 Cal.Rptr. 821, 18 A.L.R.3d 1328 (1967); had reached the same conclusion as Ru......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 10, 1981
    ...court may not give such an instruction over the defendant's objection. State v. Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa, 1970); Villines v. State, 492 P.2d 343 (Okl.Cr.1971); Mosby v. State, 246 Ark. 963, 440 S.W.2d 230 (1969); State v. White, 285 A.2d 832 (Me.1972); Dooley v. State, 393 N.E.2d 154 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT