give instruction in Oklahoma

1952The record does not bring this record within the rule stated in Bock v. State, 80 Okla.

1947The record does not bring this case within *92 the rule stated in Bock v. State, 80 Okla.

1997Woodall v. Chandler Material Co., 716 P.2d 652 (Okla.1986). ¶ 7 B.M.I. asserts that because there was evidence presented at trial to warrant an instruction on assumption of risk, it was not error for the court to give the instruction.

1972This Court held in Pope v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 513 (1964), and Cline v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 304 (1968), that the failure of the trial court to give defense counsel an opportunity to establish his contention that the jury was impaneled without complying with the statutes is reversible error.

1972This Court held in Pope v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 513 (1964), and Cline v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 304 (1968), that the failure of the trial court to give defense counsel an opportunity to establish his contention that the jury was impaneled without complying with the statutes is reversible error.

1956In Fuller v. Neundorf, Okl., 278 P.2d 836, 837 , a case growing out of the same collision as here involved, it was held: "Under the Code of Civil Procedure a defendant in a tort action, may plead a general denial, contributory negligence and unavoidable accident, and where the evidence tends to disclose, substantially, circumstances which would justify the jury in concluding that there is an inevitable or an unavoidable accident, it is the duty of the court to give an instruction on the issue of unavoidable accident." The rule as above stated in the earlier Fuller case is here applicable and i

1956In Fuller v. Neundorf, Okl., 278 P.2d 836, 837 , a case growing out of the same collision as here involved, it was held: “Under the Code of Civil Procedure a defendant in a tort action, may plead a general denial, contributory negligence and unavoidable accident, and where the evidence tends to disclose, substantially, circumstances which would justify the jury in concluding that there is an inevitable or an unavoidable accident, it is the duty of the court to give an instruction on the- issue of unavoidable accident.” The rule as above stated in the earlier Fuller case is here applicable and

1951Bower v. Selby, 105 Okla. 241 , 232 P. 402 ; Johnson v. Harris, 166 Okla. 23 , 25 P. 2d 1072 ; Maney Bros. & Co. v. Blackburn, 158 Okla. 298 , 13 P. 2d 177 .

1951Bower v. Selby, 105 Okla. 241 , 232 P. 402 ; Johnson v. Harris, 166 Okla. 23 , 25 P. 2d 1072 ; Maney Bros. & Co. v. Blackburn, 158 Okla. 298 , 13 P. 2d 177 .

1951Bower v. Selby, 105 Okla. 241 , 232 P. 402 ; Johnson v. Harris, 166 Okla. 23 , 25 P. 2d 1072 ; Maney Bros. & Co. v. Blackburn, 158 Okla. 298 , 13 P. 2d 177 .

1951Bower v. Selby, 105 Okla. 241 , 232 P. 402 ; Johnson v. Harris, 166 Okla. 23 , 25 P. 2d 1072 ; Maney Bros. & Co. v. Blackburn, 158 Okla. 298 , 13 P. 2d 177 .

1951Bower v. Selby, 105 Okla. 241 , 232 P. 402 ; Johnson v. Harris, 166 Okla. 23 , 25 P. 2d 1072 ; Maney Bros. & Co. v. Blackburn, 158 Okla. 298 , 13 P. 2d 177 .

1951Bower v. Selby, 105 Okla. 241 , 232 P. 402 ; Johnson v. Harris, 166 Okla. 23 , 25 P. 2d 1072 ; Maney Bros. & Co. v. Blackburn, 158 Okla. 298 , 13 P. 2d 177 .

1944It is next insisted that the court committed error in the giving of instruction No. 6, which reads: “You are instructed that evidence has been offered by the state tending to show the commission by the defendant of an offense or offenses other than the oné for which he is now on trial, and in this connection, you are instructed that such evidence has been admitted and is to be considered by you only for the purpose of throwing light upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant of the specific charge contained in the information in this case and for which he is now on trial, if

1943Gatliff v. Territory, 2 Okla. 523 , 37 P. 809 ; State v. Estep, [ 44 Kan. 572 ], 24 P. 986 .

1943Gatliff v. Territory, 2 Okla. 523 , 37 P. 809 ; State v. Estep, [ 44 Kan. 572 ], 24 P. 986 .

1943Gatliff v. Territory, 2 Okla. 523 , 37 P. 809 ; State v. Estep, [ 44 Kan. 572 ], 24 P. 986 .

1932Farmers State Bank v. Hess, 138 Okla. 190 , 280 P. 305 ; Schwarze v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. of Maryland, 136 Okla. 51 , 275 P. 640 .

1932Farmers State Bank v. Hess, 138 Okla. 190 , 280 P. 305 ; Schwarze v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. of Maryland, 136 Okla. 51 , 275 P. 640 .

1932Co. v. Westhafer, 92 Okla. 89 , 218 P. 525 , paragraph 6 of the syllabus, this court announced the following rule: “Where a party fails to reserve an exception to the refusal of the court to give an instruction requested in charge to the jury, an assignment of error predicated upon the refusal of the court to give the instructions requested will not be reviewed by this court.” It has been repeatedly held by this court that where the sufficiency of evidence is questioned, neither by, demurrer nor by asking for an instructed verdict, the question of whether there is any evidence reasonably tendi

1932Co. v. Westhafer, 92 Okla. 89 , 218 P. 525 , paragraph 6 of the syllabus, this court announced the following rule: “Where a party fails to reserve an exception to the refusal of the court to give an instruction requested in charge to the jury, an assignment of error predicated upon the refusal of the court to give the instructions requested will not be reviewed by this court.” It has been repeatedly held by this court that where the sufficiency of evidence is questioned, neither by, demurrer nor by asking for an instructed verdict, the question of whether there is any evidence reasonably tendi

1932Farmers State Bank v. Hess, 138 Okla. 190 , 280 P. 305 ; Schwarze v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. of Maryland, 136 Okla. 51 , 275 P. 640 .

1932Farmers State Bank v. Hess, 138 Okla. 190 , 280 P. 305 ; Schwarze v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. of Maryland, 136 Okla. 51 , 275 P. 640 .

1930Defendants also complain because the trial court failed to define the word “steal.” In the case of Underwood v. State, 23 Okla.

1929Cr. 102 , 197 P. 1064 , Judge Doyle well says: “The fact that the defendant was under arrest and in jail, and was not warned that any statement made by him might be used aginst him, will not affect the admissibility of any voluntary statement made by him, which would otherwise be competent.” The fifth assignment of error, on the ground that the court failed to give an instruction on petit larceny, and in the sixth assignment, the failure of the court to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence, is without merit, for the reason that the evidence to support the charge of grand larceny was

1929In Anderson v. State, 8 Okla, Cr. 90, 126 Pac. 840 , Ann.

1926The defendant submitted and requested the court to give an instruction on the law of accomplice testimony and requested the court submit the question, as to whether or not the witness Brady was an accomplice, as one of fact for the jury in a form approved by this court in the case of Cudjoe v. State, 12 Okla.

1926Cr. 246 , 154 P. 500 , L.

1925Co. (Mich.) 43 N. W. 765 , we find the following statement: “And in such a case it is the duty of thq court, in submitting the facts to the jury, to especially call their attention, to the circumstances of his youth, and the rules which should govern them in passing upon the age and inexperience, and what allowance should be made in consequence thereof; and that in such case it is the clear duty of the court to do this, whether the party has the aid of counsel or not, ’ that it is a part of his statutory duty, and not wait to have his attention directed to it by request of party or his counsel

1925The first contention made is that the court committed reversible error in the 8th paragraph of thei instructions given, which is an instruction on contributory negligence; and appellant contends that this is error because contributory negligence was not pleaded as a defense in this action, and cites the case of Colonial Refining Co. v. Lathrop, 64 Okla. 47 , 166 Pac. 747 , wherein this court passed upon a pleading similar to the pleading here involved, which simply alleges negligence on the part of the plaintiff, but does not specifically allege contributory negligence, in which case the defen

1925The first contention made is that the court committed reversible error in the 8th paragraph of thei instructions given, which is an instruction on contributory negligence; and appellant contends that this is error because contributory negligence was not pleaded as a defense in this action, and cites the case of Colonial Refining Co. v. Lathrop, 64 Okla. 47 , 166 Pac. 747 , wherein this court passed upon a pleading similar to the pleading here involved, which simply alleges negligence on the part of the plaintiff, but does not specifically allege contributory negligence, in which case the defen

1925A further discussion of thiá phase of the case will be found in the cases of Margaret McDonald v. City of Spring Valley, 283 Ill. 52 , 120 N. E. 476 ; Chicago City R.

1925This court has held in the case of Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Hairel, 46 Okla. 409 , 148 Pac. 1005 : “The court should have instructed the jury that the said contractor was not an independent contractor.

1925This court has held in the case of Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Hairel, 46 Okla. 409 , 148 Pac. 1005 : “The court should have instructed the jury that the said contractor was not an independent contractor.

1924We pass now to a consideration of the *54 second assignment of error which was the refusal of the trial court to give instruction numbered one, which is as follows: “You are instructed that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff entered into a contract or arrangement with the defendant, lumber company, whereby the lumber company agreed to pay commissions to- the plaintiff on sales of lumber made by the defendant through efforts of the plaintiff, and vou further find from the evidence that at the time such sales, if any were made, the plaintiff was in the employ of or was representing

1924We pass now to a consideration of the *54 second assignment of error which was the refusal of the trial court to give instruction numbered one, which is as follows: “You are instructed that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff entered into a contract or arrangement with the defendant, lumber company, whereby the lumber company agreed to pay commissions to- the plaintiff on sales of lumber made by the defendant through efforts of the plaintiff, and vou further find from the evidence that at the time such sales, if any were made, the plaintiff was in the employ of or was representing

1924We pass now to a consideration of the *54 second assignment of error which was the refusal of the trial court to give instruction numbered one, which is as follows: “You are instructed that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff entered into a contract or arrangement with the defendant, lumber company, whereby the lumber company agreed to pay commissions to- the plaintiff on sales of lumber made by the defendant through efforts of the plaintiff, and vou further find from the evidence that at the time such sales, if any were made, the plaintiff was in the employ of or was representing

1924We pass now to a consideration of the *54 second assignment of error which was the refusal of the trial court to give instruction numbered one, which is as follows: “You are instructed that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff entered into a contract or arrangement with the defendant, lumber company, whereby the lumber company agreed to pay commissions to- the plaintiff on sales of lumber made by the defendant through efforts of the plaintiff, and vou further find from the evidence that at the time such sales, if any were made, the plaintiff was in the employ of or was representing

1922In the ease of Gill v. State, 20 Okla.

1920We have not overlooked People v. Wong Loung, 159 Cal. 520 , 114 Pac. 829 , cited in defendant’s brief, but cannot assent to the law as announced in said case.

1920We have not overlooked People v. Wong Loung, 159 Cal. 520 , 114 Pac. 829 , cited in defendant’s brief, but cannot assent to the law as announced in said case.

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new

1918Denson et al. v. Fowler et al., 56 Okla. 670 , 155 Pac. 1184 ; Shawacre v. Morris, 52 Okla. 142 , 152 Pac. 835 . *297 In Shuler et ux. v. Collins, 40 Okla. 136 , 136 Pac. 752 , it is held: “This court will not review an instruction given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial, and exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.” In Hess v. Sturdavent, 59 Okla. 239 , 158 Pac. 905 , it is held: “Where instructions are assigned as error, and such instructions are not presented in a motion for a new