Case ID: okla-crim_3/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "OWEN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bruce Crow v. State.
    No. A-61.
    Opinion Filed January 25, 1910.
    (106 Pac. 556.)
    INSTRUCTIONS — Credibility of Defendant. An instruction, which says: “The defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf. Tou will judge the defendant as an interested witness. You are not to disbelieve him merely because he is the defendant in t)he 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.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from Sequoyah County Court; W. N. Littlejohn, Judge.
    
    The plaintiff in error, Bruce Crow, was tried in the county court of Sequoyah county in September, 1908, charged with the violation of the game .and fish law. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, a fee of $25 to the Game Warden, and the costs of the prosecution. The case is before us on appeal.
    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, Judge.

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, ánd then you will give his testimony such credit as you think it entitled to, nnd 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 eases: Fletcher v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 300, 101 Pac. 599; Green v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 55, 101 Pac. 112; Hendrix v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 240, 101 Pac. 125; and Reed v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 652, 103 Pac. 371.

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

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.