Case Name: LEM SING and LEE SING v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1910-12-13
Citations: 4 Okla. Crim. 544
Docket Number: No. A-147
Parties: LEM SING and LEE SING v. STATE.
Judges: DOYLE and EICHAEDSON, Judges, concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 544–546

Head Matter:
LEM SING and LEE SING v. STATE.
No. A-147.
Opinion Filed December 13, 1910.
Rehearing Denied December 22, 1910.
INSTRUCTIONS — Parties to Offenses. — Failure to Instruct. Where two defendants- are -jointly charged and jointly tried for- the commission of an offense, in the absence of exceptions to in? structions given, and where the evidence clearly shows that both of the defendants are guilty a-s charged, a conviction will not be reversed because'the court failed ^o instruct the jury that they might convict one of the' defendants and acquit the other.
(Syllabus by the 'Court.)
Appeal from Garter County Court; I. R. Mason, Judge.
The defendants were jointly convicted for violating the prohibition law, and their punishment was assessed at a fine of $250 each and four months each in the county jail, and they appealed.
Affirmed.
APPEAL — Case-Made—Requisite Recitals. Matters occurring during the trial of a case which counsel desire to assign as error must appear by proper recitals in the case-made duly certified to as the law provides, independently of the motion for a new trial.
(‘Syllabus by the 'Court.)
Cruce, Cruce & Bleahmore and William Pfeiffer, for appellants.
Fred S. Caldwell, for the State.

Opinion:
EDBMAN, Presiding Judge.
We have carefully considered the brief of counsel for appellants and have examined the entire record in this case. We find that all the material questions involved in this case have been decided adversely to the contention of appellants, except as to one question. It would therefore be a useless consumption of time and space to repeat here what we have previously decided.
The 13th assignment of error complains that the court erred in its charge to the jury in not authorizing them to convict one of the defendants and acquit the other. No exception was reserved to the instructions of the court upon this ground. Neither did the defendants request a special instruction upon this proposition. The evidence contained in the record is overwhelming and conclusive as to the guilt of both of the defendants. We therefore hold that the court did not commit reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that they might acquit one of the defendants, even though they found the other guilty. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with directions to the sheriff of Carter county to proceed with the execution of the judgment.
DOYLE and EICHAEDSON, Judges, concur.