The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-01-14
CRIMINAL
COURT
0P P|N|ONS

iht VlulnW court ui appeals late
wednesday Afternoon handed down
four decisions.
The case ai While liargo vs., United
States, convicted al numbering bis wife
near Ckmulgee aud sentenced 70 life
imprisonment appealed from Tho West.
ern dlst.icI 81 indian Territory, Is re.
versed
Syllabus a Opinion.
Flrst-lf any officer whose duty 1t
shall te 70 summnn q jury or to select
snd summon talesmcn, when the regus
lur panel Of fur rs has boon exhausted.
shall he guilty Of unlawful partial or
improper conduct IA seoctlng or sum
monlng such jurors or talesmen, he
commits an act Of gross contempt OF
9 nrk and Should be severely punish
ed for sugh conduct
Second X rs the duty Of The officer
who summons jurors. Or who selects
and summons taleameu, TO use his bosi
efforts to secure mon ( Intelligence.
courage, and good moral character.
bus 10 doing this he should ACT with
entire imparIlnlity between the prose
cutlon and iae defendant
ThlFd When motion Is made. sup
ported 1y affidavit TO withdraw a ease
from the consideration of and llschars'
a jury, on account of improper action
Of che Offices who se.ected and sum.
moned the jury, or he talcsmen. and
such nlStlon Is made as soon as The
facts stated therein me to the knowl
edge af the defendant or bis counsel
and tie matters OF fact therein stated
are NOT deulei under oath, they win be
taken as confessed. and viii be con,
alruei most strongly against the prose
cution and III favor 90 The defendant
Furih-A challenge 90 the array ofl
panel VIII lie FOR bias. partaity or ir
regular action OF The mmmoning of
tlccr.
l'iith When The record shows that
a conviction has hen fairly obtained.
this court win not consider technical
err rs which do not effect the sub
atanila rights Of the defendant. But.
we Will not allow any Judgment 81 con
iylution % stand when the record shows
that unfais means were resorted %
IN order % obtain It Oplnln by Fur
man.p J.
Sentence Affirmed.
The case cf George Alderman vs.
Territory Of Oklahoma convicted OF
grand larceny and sentenced to fom
years. Is affirmed
Syllabus of Opinion.
(Al r test The legality Of verdict
n ease of larceny whore The Jury /
has convicted a defendant upon the
testimony of an aecnmplirG. with de |
renaeat evidence tending 10 connect |
The defendant with thc commission Of /
The offtnse this court VIII take lhe I
strongest vleW the cosroboraline /
evidence againsI the defendant that the /
evidence would warrant The jury d. /
a.
llll Where q defendant Is convicted I
ON geeomplico testimony and the eyi /
dehee is clear aud satisfactory, lh.f
court will not reverse lho Judgment OIL
the iawer court. unless # is tble 70
say that the record 4 es not contain
any evidence independent Of The tesil
mony Of the acoumpllce, which tends
to correct the defendant with Tho com
mission 81 the oflense Opinion bs
Furman. P.J
Versus Territory,
The case Al Douglas VS. Territory I
Of Oklahoma, appeal from tomanche
cehuty. nlanslaughter 3ni degree. sen
fenced for "a muntas $, Is affirmed,
Syllabus,
fiiaI Oral statements made by NE
oonrl 70 the lNry with rciereuee 70 the
form ai their verdict which 10 bet \ n
iain directions or instructions upon
rg'i.o = iew. involaed IN tie
trial, or comment on the evidence, do
..a4s the sta.Vsu leunltlhg
10 the jury 70 be reduced
10 writing unless waived BY lhe dc
icndani
Second --rhc phrase beyond rcas
lnahle dnub," used IN The ssaluie In
the measure 0f prosl |
necessary 10 warrant conviction IN a
criminal Gaze. Is not d technical term
and needs no explanation from the
courts In inslrucling iurles. An IN
itruotion un this subject IN tfs Ian
,raee of the statute Is an that the
.onrt IL required s. give Il Is q dan
yerous thing tor the courts 10 attempt
% 10 lurihcf
Third lal Whta spsnsal fall III
heir briefs 10 point wherein the ce.
endant has beer Injured by an iustrue
ion given, thls court win not consider
Ia assignment error based Upon
ueh gound unless the error y funda'
nensal
lbl II is the dniy Of the trial court
d elfe Instructions applicable to the
csilmang o. a defendant and based
non The hypothesis THAI Il Ii tuel
ma when such I'll instruction Is given
bic desendans can not be heard 80 nj
aaln
tci u lbls case the defendant waa
peaea officer Ills testimony was q
M oifnes shat difficulty ess 10
'r3efess. ehon ne commanded the de.
easea 10 drop bis pistol, Nhefeupon
be deeesheH turned upon defendant
nd Threatened 10 fiil hlm when The
niendant ilIad fae fatal shut See
plaiaa ior Instructions properly giyen
epleahle IA this testimony 0plnlon
n Fafnsh. p
opinion By Baker
u Il nlllbn Vs lhe Territory Co.
aa0eae rounte lnHns aushlef in thel
lfsl Isaffe. sentenced lof tea years.
efefsaa