Case ID: p2d_264/html/0395-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRETT, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Frank JAMES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
    No. A-11872.
    Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.
    Nov. 25, 1953.
    Rizley & Wilson, Sayre, for plaintiff in error.
    Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
   BRETT, Judge.

This is a companion case to Meschew v. State of Oklahoma, Okl.Cr., 264 P.2d 391. A complete statement of the facts is set forth in the Meschew case and reference may be had to that opinion for the facts herein involved. Meschew and James were jointly charged.

The sole question raised in both of said cases is that the trial court submitted to the jury instructions Nos. 10 and 13 which it is claimed were prejudicial to the defendant, which claims were predicated upon the fact that the trial court interlined the instructions striking out the word “ten” in both of said instructions by drawing two lines through said words and inserting directly above, the word “five” in hand-written print inclosed in parenthesis. It is urged that said arrangement unduly called attention to the figure “5”. The same contentions as herein made were made in the Meschew case. The questions raised in the two cases being identical the treatment thereof as set forth in the Meschew case is adopted as applicable herein, and it necessarily follows that the same order would be made for the defendant Charles Frank James herein. The judgment and sentence for the reasons as set forth in the Meschew case, as adopted herein, is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.