Case Name: R. H. LAWSON v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1931-05-02
Citations: 50 Okla. Crim. 443
Docket Number: No. A-7988
Parties: R. H. LAWSON v. STATE.
Judges: DAVENPORT, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 443–445

Head Matter:
R. H. LAWSON v. STATE.
No. A-7988.
Opinion Filed May 2, 1931.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1931.
(298 Pac. 896.)
Lon Morris and Toby Morris, for plaintiff in error.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and C. S. McCuistion, Co. A tty., for the State.

Opinion:
CHAPPELL, J.
Plantiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Cotton county of the crime of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and Ms punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for six months.
The evidence of the state was that on the 7th day of October, 1929, there was a large crowd of people on the streets of Walters; that defendant was driving- a car down the streets of the city, honking the horn, halloaing and saying, "Get out of the way'7; that it looked like defendant's car was going to hit every car he met; that the car was just going wigwag, wigwagging and passing first on one side and then on the other; that defendant was pretty drunk and staggered quite a bit as he walked after he was arrested; that his tongue was thick, and that he was boisterous at times; that defendant said he had drunk three or four drinks, but he was not drunk; that defendant said he did not know who the car belonged to; that defendant was driving the car in Cotton county, while in an intoxicated condition.
Defendant, testifying for himself, denied that he was driving the car, but that John Scott was doing the driving, and that John was pretty drunk; that he (the defendant) was not drunk.
This conflicting evidence was for the jury. They saw the witnesses and heard them testify and were charged with the duty of passing upon the credibility of the witnesses and weighing their testimony. The evidence of the state was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
Defendant next contends that the county attorney was guilty of misconduct in his remarks to the jury.
The county attorney prosecuting was not the officer who filed the complaint and began the prosecution. In his remarks to the jury he said that, if the county attorney bad not believed tbe defendant guilty, be would not bave filed tbe case, and immediately thereafter stated to tbe court that it was improper for bim to make sucb a remark, and asked tbe court to instruct tbe jury not to consider it, wbicb tbe court did.
Tbe remarks made were improper, but, in tbe light of tbe convincing evidence of tbe guilt of defendant offered by tbe state, bis rights were not prejudiced by such remarks.
Defendant next contends that tbe court erred in refusing to permit bim to impeach tbe verdict of tbe jury by calling three of tbe jurors to testify as to what occurred in tbe jury room.
Unless required by statute, a verdict cannot be impeached by tbe affidavit or testimony of jurors showing misconduct upon their part in arriving at tbe verdict. Keith v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 156, 123 Pac. 172; Star v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 210, 131 Pac. 542; Wilson v. State, 36 Okla. Cr. 148, 252 Pac. 1106; Revis v. State, 42 Okla. Cr. 198, 275 Pac. 351.
Tbe record in this case discloses that tbe defendant bad a fair trial. Tbe evidence supports tbe verdict of tbe jury, and tbe errors of law complained of are not sufficient to require a reversal of tbe case.
For the reasons stated, tbe cause is affirmed.
DAVENPORT, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.