Crow v. State, 106 P. 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 1910).
Crow v. State, 106 P. 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 1910). Book View Copy Cite
Bruce Crow
v.
State.
No. A-51..
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Jan 25, 1910.
106 P. 556
T.F. Shackelford, for plaintiff in error. Charles West, Atty. Gen., and Chas. L. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Owen, Furman, Doyle.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
OWEN, Judge.

The Attorney General has filed his written confession of error, confessing that the lower court erred in giving instruction No. 9, which is as follows:

“The defendant -is a competent witness in his own behalf. You will judge the defendant as an interested witness. You are not to disbelieve him merely because he is the defendant in the case, but you will apply the rules of judging the credibility of witnesses to the defendant’s testimony, ánd then you will give his testimony such credit as you think it entitled to, nnd no more.”

Under the uniform decisions of this court the confession of error must be sustained. A similar instruction was condemned [*429] in the following named eases: Fletcher v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 300, 101 Pac. 599; Green v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 55, 101 Pac. 112; Hendrix v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 240, 101 Pac. 125; and Reed v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 652, 103 Pac. 371.

The confession of error is sustained, and the ease reversed, with direction to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

FURMAN, PRESIDING Judge, and DOYLE, Judge, concur.