erred in giving instruction in Oklahoma

1954If the defendant had in his possession more than one quart of intoxicating liquor, such possession is such prima facie evidence that the defendant had the same for an unlawful purpose.” The defendant relies for a reversal on this ground upon the cases of Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87 , 185 P.2d 476 , and Hughes v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 25 , 184 P.2d 625 , and others.

1954If the defendant had in his possession more than one quart of intoxicating liquor, such possession is such prima facie evidence that the defendant had the same for an unlawful purpose.” The defendant relies for a reversal on this ground upon the cases of Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87 , 185 P.2d 476 , and Hughes v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 25 , 184 P.2d 625 , and others.

1968Cr. 25, 194 P.2d 202 ." Defendant's second proposition states: "The court erred in giving instruction number 15 over defendant's objection." The instruction complained of pertained to defendant's flight from the scene, after the shooting occurred.

1968Cr. 25, 194 P.2d 202 .” Defendant’s second proposition states: “The court erred in giving instruction number 15 over defendant’s objection.” The instruction complained of pertained to defendant’s flight from the scene, after the shooting occurred.

1965In Oglesby v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 286 , at page 291, 38 P.2d 32 , at page 34, which is supported in numerous cases before and since that opinion was handed down, this Court covered this matter as follows: "If, therefore, under any view of the evidence, whether of the state or the defendant, there is any substantial evidence tending to reduce the offense to a lower degree of homicide than murder, it is the duty of the court to instruct on such lower degree, but where there is no evidence tending to support the lower degree of the crime, but where all the evidence is that the killing is either mur

1965In Oglesby v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 286 , at page 291, 38 P.2d 32 , at page 34, which is supported in numerous cases before and since that opinion was handed down, this Court covered this matter as follows: "If, therefore, under any view of the evidence, whether of the state or the defendant, there is any substantial evidence tending to reduce the offense to a lower degree of homicide than murder, it is the duty of the court to instruct on such lower degree, but where there is no evidence tending to support the lower degree of the crime, but where all the evidence is that the killing is either mur

1962This instruction was approved in Huckabe v. State, 53 Okl.Cr. 291 , 11 P.2d 212 .

1962This instruction was approved in Huckabe v. State, 53 Okl.Cr. 291 , 11 P.2d 212 .

1960In Capps v. Vasey Brothers, 23 Okl. 554 , at page 559, 101 P. 1043 , at page 1045, an action for conversion of a promissory note, we said: “The contention on the part of the plaintiff in error that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4, as to the measure of damages the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover, to wit, the face value of the note, with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum, appears to be well founded.

1960In Capps v. Vasey Brothers, 23 Okl. 554 , at page 559, 101 P. 1043 , at page 1045, an action for conversion of a promissory note, we said: “The contention on the part of the plaintiff in error that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4, as to the measure of damages the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover, to wit, the face value of the note, with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum, appears to be well founded.

1954This instruction is identical in wording to the one construed by this court in the case of Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 250 P.2d 72 .

1954If the defendant had in his possession more than one quart of intoxicating liquor, such possession is such prima facie evidence that the defendant had the same for an unlawful purpose.” The defendant relies for a reversal on this ground upon the cases of Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87 , 185 P.2d 476 , and Hughes v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 25 , 184 P.2d 625 , and others.

1954If the defendant had in his possession more than one quart of intoxicating liquor, such possession is such prima facie evidence that the defendant had the same for an unlawful purpose.” The defendant relies for a reversal on this ground upon the cases of Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87 , 185 P.2d 476 , and Hughes v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 25 , 184 P.2d 625 , and others.

1954The handing of the forged prescription to the druggist to be filled was an-uttering as that term is hereinabove defined.. *983 It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4 for the reason that said instruction told the jury the maximum punishment they could inflict, but did not instruct them as to the minimum punishment that could be assessed the accused in case of a conviction, citing in support of his contention Colbert v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 487 , 113 P. 561 , and Mead v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 86 , 83 P.2d 404 .

1954The handing of the forged prescription to the druggist to be filled was an-uttering as that term is hereinabove defined.. *983 It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4 for the reason that said instruction told the jury the maximum punishment they could inflict, but did not instruct them as to the minimum punishment that could be assessed the accused in case of a conviction, citing in support of his contention Colbert v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 487 , 113 P. 561 , and Mead v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 86 , 83 P.2d 404 .

1954The handing of the forged prescription to the druggist to be filled was an-uttering as that term is hereinabove defined.. *983 It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4 for the reason that said instruction told the jury the maximum punishment they could inflict, but did not instruct them as to the minimum punishment that could be assessed the accused in case of a conviction, citing in support of his contention Colbert v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 487 , 113 P. 561 , and Mead v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 86 , 83 P.2d 404 .

1954The handing of the forged prescription to the druggist to be filled was an-uttering as that term is hereinabove defined.. *983 It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4 for the reason that said instruction told the jury the maximum punishment they could inflict, but did not instruct them as to the minimum punishment that could be assessed the accused in case of a conviction, citing in support of his contention Colbert v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 487 , 113 P. 561 , and Mead v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 86 , 83 P.2d 404 .

1953Cr. 443 , 75 P. 2d 914 .” It is contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 3 to the jury, which read: “You are instructed that the possession of intoxicating liquor in excess of one quart by the defendant is prima facie evidence of unlawful intent, that is intent to sell, barter, trade, transport or otherwise furnish such intoxicating liquors and you are to determine whether or not from the evidence, the amount so in possession, if any, by the defendant is in excess of one quart.” This instruction must be read in connection with instruction No. 4, which was given, and is as follo

1947Cr. 93 , 151 P. 2d 944, 945 , wherein this court stated: “Under 21 Oklahoma Statutes 1941 § 51, it is proper to charge in the information one or more offenses of prior conviction, and offer proof to sustain the same.” It is claimed that the court erred in giving instruction number four which reads as follows: “You are instructed, gentlemen, that under the laws of this state, a girl 14 years of age cannot legally marry, either with or without the consent of her parents, and any purported marriage of the parties in this case would be null and void.” The defendant offered no evidence in his defen

1947Cr. 421 , 60 P. 2d 805, 806 , it is said, in the first paragraph of the syllabus : “Where the court in its general instructions correctly advised the jury as to the law applicable to the facts in the case, it is not error for the court to refuse to give special instructions requested by the defendant covered by the court’s instructions.” It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 4.

1944It is next contended tli^t the court erred in giving instruction No. 7, which it is unnecessary to quote, and that by reason of a former decision of this court (Rice v. State, 60 Okla.

1944Cr. 398 , 64 P. 2d 1240, 1243 ) this case should either be reversed or modified.

1943The case of Walton v. State, 53 Okla.

1943S. 1941 §§ 81 and 83 prior to the institution of their action was fatal thereto, and in support of the contention so made cites Choctaw Lumber Co. v. Gilmore, 11 Okla. 462 , 68 P. 733 ; Patterson v. Byers, 17 Okla. 633 , 89 P. 1114 ; Baker v. L.

1943S. 1941 §§ 81 and 83 prior to the institution of their action was fatal thereto, and in support of the contention so made cites Choctaw Lumber Co. v. Gilmore, 11 Okla. 462 , 68 P. 733 ; Patterson v. Byers, 17 Okla. 633 , 89 P. 1114 ; Baker v. L.

1943S. 1941 §§ 81 and 83 prior to the institution of their action was fatal thereto, and in support of the contention so made cites Choctaw Lumber Co. v. Gilmore, 11 Okla. 462 , 68 P. 733 ; Patterson v. Byers, 17 Okla. 633 , 89 P. 1114 ; Baker v. L.

1943S. 1941 §§ 81 and 83 prior to the institution of their action was fatal thereto, and in support of the contention so made cites Choctaw Lumber Co. v. Gilmore, 11 Okla. 462 , 68 P. 733 ; Patterson v. Byers, 17 Okla. 633 , 89 P. 1114 ; Baker v. L.

1941Cr. 142 , 8 P. 2d 690 . *144 It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 5, which was as follows: “You are further instructed that if you find from the evidence in this case that the defendant did on or about the 26th day of May, 1939, or at any time within three years prior to the filing of the information in this case, which was on the 27th day of May, 1939, that the defendant Kenneth F. Sleeper, then and there being, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and wrongfully ship, convey and transport a certain quantity of intoxicating liquor, to wit: 426 pints of whisk

1938In Carter v. State, 12 Okla.

1937In Haskell v. Kennedy, supra, we point out that a similar instruction had been approved in Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Tice, 116 Okla. 24 , 243 P. 175 , citing Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law, vol. 2, p. 1921.

1937In Haskell v. Kennedy, supra, we point out that a similar instruction had been approved in Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Tice, 116 Okla. 24 , 243 P. 175 , citing Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law, vol. 2, p. 1921.

1935It follows, therefore, that the court erred in giving instruction No. '2 on the part of plaintiff, which relates to the measure of damages.” The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in the case of Seaboard Oil Co. v. Britt, 271 S. W. 1038 , had before it a similar set of instructions.

1935In his argument the defendant relies upon Boultinghouse v. State, 24 Okla.

1934Cr. 321 , 5 Pac. (2d) 170, 171 , this court held: “If the defendant desires special instructions in the trial of a criminal case, he is required by the provisions of our criminal procedure to present in writing to the court the instructions desired, and it is not error for the trial court to omit to instruct upon every possible question under the defendant’s theory of the case, when he has not requested such instructions.” The defendant further complains that the court erred in giving instruction No. 10.

1934Ah examination of that instruction shoivs that it is an approved instruction of this court, and has been followed in substance since the case of Tucker v. Territory, 17 Okla. 56 , 87 Pac. 307 , was decided by this court.

1934Ah examination of that instruction shoivs that it is an approved instruction of this court, and has been followed in substance since the case of Tucker v. Territory, 17 Okla. 56 , 87 Pac. 307 , was decided by this court.

1934It is next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No. 31, and in support of his contention that instruction No. 31 is erroneous he cites the case of Patzwald v. U. S., 7 Okla. 232 , 51 Pac. 158 .

1932Cr. 234 , 282 Pac. 692 . *78 It is further urged by the defendant that the court erred in giving instruction No. 6, which is as follows “6.

1931Defendant complains of numerous errors, only one of which needs to be considered by this court in determining the issues raised by defendant in his petition in error, namely, that the court erred in giving instruction No. 8, which reads as follows: “Gentlemen of the Jury, you are instructed that if the state proves that the defendant had more than one quart of wine as charged in this case beyond reasonable doubt, then you shoujld 'bring in a verdict of ‘guilty’ unless the defendant proves to your satisfaction that he did not have it with the intent to violate the law, that is, to sell, barter,

1931Cr. 92 , 279 Pac. 911 , this court said: “Under a provision of the act of 1913 [chapter 26], declaring that the keeping in excess of a certain amount of intoxicating liquors shall be ‘prima facie evidence of an intention to- convey, sell, or otherwise dispose of such liquors,’ evidence of such possession is sufficient to establish the unlawful intent, unless rebutted, or the contrary proved, yet it does not make it obligatory upon the jury to *133 convict after tbe presentation of such proof, but such evi-1 deuce is competent and sufficient to justify a jury in finding a defendant guilty, prov

1931Defendant next contends that the court erred in giving instruction No. 2-A, on reasonable doubt. • The instruction complained of is in the exact language used in Brantley v. State, 15 Okla.

1931Cr. 6 , 175 Pac. 51 .

1930And, if you find these facts, beyond a reasonable doubt, and also- find the other facts necessary to constitute the crime charged, then it will be your duty to- convict the defendant.” This instruction is almost identical with an instruction approved by this court in the case of Webb v. State, 19 Okla.