Case ID: okla-crim_7/html/0741-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FURMAN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BLUNT MARTIN v. STATE.
    No. A-1064.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. P. Parks, Judge-
    Appellant was convicted in the county court of Craig county fof a violation of the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment was assessed at a fine of four hundred dollars and one hundred and eighty days’ confinement in the county jail.
    Appealed. Affirmed.
    James S. Davenport, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   FURMAN, P. J.

Upon the trial of these cases the court among ■other things instructed the jury as follows:

"If the jury believe from the evidence, that any witness has willfully testified falsely to any material fact or statement of facts in this ■case, you are at liberty to disregard the whole of such witnesses’ testimony except in so far as the same may be corroborated by other creditable witnesses or creditable evidence.”

This instruction should not have been given in this form. See Henry v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 430. But there are two reasons why this Instruction is not reversible error in these cases. Pirst, the record fails to show that any exception was reserved to this instruction when given and the error which it contains is not fundamental. Seeond, the guilt ■of the appellant-iu both of said eases is overwhelmingly and conclusively proven by the testimony. Upon the entire records appellant is not only guilty of these offenses, but he is a hardened criminal and. a confirmed bootlegger. The verdict of the jury in both eases is right. Therefore the judgments'in both of the above-numbered and entitled causes are affirmed.

ABMSTBONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.