Yoder v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | A-10227. |
| Citation | 143 P.2d 160,78 Okla.Crim. 36 |
| Parties | YODER v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Oklahoma Statutes, section 3057, O.S.1931, 22 O.S.A.1941 § 831, provides:
(a) Under this statute, both parties have the legal right to waive the giving of written instructions.
(b) The better practice is for the court to give its instructions to the jury in writing, and this is especially true in felony cases.
2. When the jury has retired to consider its verdict, and has returned to the court room for further instructions or information, it is the best practice for the trial court to refrain from orally instructing the jury, or orally explaining instructions theretofore given, but give in writing any new instructions or explanations. This practice will best safeguard the rights of the State and the defendant.
3. Oral statements made by the court to the jury over objections and exceptions of defendant examined and found to be prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.
4. Where larceny is committed in "C" County and recovered in "P" County, and defendant is charged with the larceny in "C" County, it is necessary to connect defendant with the larceny in "C" County or to show that he aided and abetted the party stealing the property in "C" County. This may be proven either by direct or circumstantial evidence.
5. Where larceny has been committed and asportation has terminated, one not connected with original taking, either as principal or as aider or abettor, but who thereafter, with knowledge that the property has been stolen, assists in concealing, selling or destroying stolen property, is not guilty of larceny.
6. Requested instruction of defendant examined and found that the court erred in refusing to give the same.
Appeal from District Court, Coal County; Roy Paul, Judge.
Walter Yoder was convicted of larceny of live stock, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Reily & Reily, of Shawnee, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., J. Walker Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., H M. Shirley, Co. Atty., of Coalgate, for defendant in error.
Defendant Walter Yoder, was charged in the District Court of Coal County, with the crime of larceny of live stock, to-wit: three head of cattle; was tried, convicted, sentenced to serve three years in the Penitentiary, and has appealed.
A number of assignments of error are presented. We shall consider them in the order we deem important.
This is a felony case. The record discloses that the court instructed the jury orally, and not in writing, as provided by the Oklahoma Statutes, section 3057, O.S.1931; 22 O.S.A.1941 § 831, which is as follows:
The record reveals that counsel for defendant waived his right to have the jury instructed in writing, and agreed that the court instruct them orally. We have held that where this waiver is made, the case will not be reversed by reason of such oral instructions. Elms v. State, 53 Okl.Cr. 268, 10 P.2d 728; Bird v. State, 22 Okl.Cr. 263, 210 P. 925; Williams v. United States, 8 Cir., 158 F. 30, 88 C.C.A. 296.
But notwithstanding this, the court has often stated that it was the better practice for the court to instruct the jury in writing, and refrain from giving oral instructions. This is especially true in felony cases, and while it may not be reversible error, as above stated, we again reiterate that the better practice is for the court to give his instructions in writing, as provided by the statutes. Howard v. State, 39 Okl.Cr. 336, 265 P. 149; Rea v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 281, 105 P. 386, 106 P. 982; Lunsford v. State, 53 Okl.Cr. 305, 11 P.2d 539; Bird v. State, 22 Okl.Cr. 263, 210 P. 925; Elms v. State, 53 Okl.Cr. 268, 10 P.2d 728; Milam v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 247, 218 P. 168.
It is next contended that after the jury had retired for the consideration of their verdict, they were returned into the court room and, after asking the court certain questions, the court, after reading the instructions inquired about, orally explained to jury the meaning of such instructions. After this was done, counsel for defendant objected and excepted to the oral instructions given by the court, which was overruled.
We have carefully examined the comments of the court, as revealed by the record, and find that it substantiates the reason for the rule above announced--that the court should only instruct the jury in writing and refrain from oral instructions.
In this instance, the court endeavored to make a fair explanation of the meaning of the instructions, and most of the statement is fair and in conformity with the law and the facts, but as a part of one of the oral instructions, the court said: "If he did not have anything to do with the property after the property was taken and did not aid or abet in concealing, selling, or destroying the stolen property, he would not be guilty of larceny."
At a glance this instruction might be considered favorable to the defendant, but when applied to the facts in the instant case, it is almost an instruction to find the defendant guilty.
The property here involved was stolen in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...with which he stood charged. The recent case of Yoder v. State, decided by this Court on November 17, 1943, and reported in Okl.Cr., 143 P.2d 160, 161, is almost parallel case. There the property was stolen in Coal County and found in Pottawatomie County. Defendant was formally charged with......
-
Gatewood v. State
...then orally instructed the jury, and no request was made or objection taken to the court instructing the jury orally. In the case of Yoder v. State, supra, we 'This is a felony case. The record discloses that the court instructed the jury orally, and not in writing, as provided by the Oklah......