The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-01-11
EACH OF THREE JUDGES
HANDS DOWN AN OPINION
No ReVsTsaIs Upon TschnlcsIIiIss
Which Do Not Affect Rights
Of Defendant

The criminal court OF appeals con.
yened At two O'Clock this afternoon IN
me new quarters IN the Convention
hail Building for The January term with
Presiding Judge Henry N Furman and
Judges Doyle and Raker present ~
cases were argued on submitted al 20.
days session. Three opinions xere
handed down. one BY each Judge.
Perhaps the most important and far
reaching opinion that has been handed
down was that by Judge Doyle IN TIE
aabe6s g rpus case Of Geo, McNaught
which appears elsewhere IN hits issue,
IN the case OF Frank Rnck VS.. Ter.
gitbry OF Oklahoma, the court IN an
opinion by Presiding Judge Farnau
g%aHtains the district court of Woods
'Ouniy M sentencing The defendant 70
Us years m taa state penilentary for
.arceny domestic animals. The
opinion. however. paints ont several
technical errors Of the trial court, but
clds thai under d liberal construction
of the laVs IN the iu%rtherance Of JUS.
lice a convict n should not be revers.
ed upon such technlcalitles which do
not affect the rights 81 the defendant
syllabus Of the Opinion
First: tal When the prosecuting
attorney goes out ~ the record and
wakes improper ren4rks, calculated e
prejudice the rights of the defendant,
Il is the duty Of COUNSEL for the de-
tense 20 promptly interposc IN obiec.
ion to such remarks and move the
G uft 10 withdraw them from tho con
sidefation Of the jury. and to Instruct
The iuey not to consider such remarks.
Obj II i6 loo late TO interp1st OBJ
leclions 70 improper remarks tht
%pgusecuting attorney HI hts lrgumepl
10 the Jury. after iho argument has
closed. unless the REMARKS we're Oh
such a character that their Withdrawal
from the G nsiderailon Of the jury
would not cure the error committed in
their utierancc
tel IL counspl for the defense 81
ont Of the record and make remarRi
not authorized By the evidence, Tres
can moi be heard & complain Il couu.
ael for the prosecution are permitted
TO 20 outside the secord IN replying Z.
such statements.
fd) Whom It Is claimed that t-In
sci fer the prosecution went ont I The
record, and made improper remarks
calculated 10 prejudice The defendant
and the triai Judge eertlfies in Tho rec
ord that such remarks were made o.
reply to remarks, not authorized BY th'
evidence. made By counsel l0r the de
lense. such certificates Is permissible
and IN the absence OF any 81 wing Y
the record TO the contrary, me up
pellate court Is hound by such eertlli
cate of the trial judge.
Second; See ease for statement 2
evidence which not only sufficiently
cnrrob rates the testimony OF an &C
complete, but which establishes th'
guilt OF the defendant independently @
the testimony Of lie accompIiee.
Third: tal Sec opinion f1r obice
lions of TIE INIT To the practice Q
taking exceptions to each aud all o. q.
Instructions given 10 the jury whiel
practice. white permissible Hnler sec
tlon 55lS % Wilson's 0klah0Ha stat
uies. Is not "a be commended
III See insttarti II 90 alihi which
White MOI endorsed as q modei. \ he''
sufficient under thH facts IN thia eas
tcl Tse laws Of Oklahoma are W %
literally construed / Ethe tsstAefaAe
Of Justice, ana Il conviction VIII api \
reversed upon g technleality VINE
does not affect TIE substantial rights
The defendant
The court III N opinlfn written y
|. Judge II. q. Baker affirmed the w
ltrlet court At rntthwRt0ulie county 4
the & s + State IS. Price.