desired instruction in Oklahoma

1962But at no time in the proceedings did the defendant follow the procedure set forth in Perry v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 347 , 235 P.2d 963 , as follows: “Where counsel are dissatisfied with instructions that are given, or desire the court to give any particular instruction, or to more definitely or sufficiently state any propositions embraced in the instructions, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given, and in the absence of such request this court will not reverse the case where the instructions generally cover the subject m

1962But at no time in the proceedings did the defendant follow the procedure set forth in Perry v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 347 , 235 P.2d 963 , as follows: “Where counsel are dissatisfied with instructions that are given, or desire the court to give any particular instruction, or to more definitely or sufficiently state any propositions embraced in the instructions, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given, and in the absence of such request this court will not reverse the case where the instructions generally cover the subject m

1954In any event in Fields v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 439 , 188 P.2d 231 , it was said where an additional instruction is desired it is the duty of the defendant’s counsel to reduce the desired instruction to writing and request the giving thereof, and in the absence of such request a conviction will' not be reversed unless the Criminal Court of Appeals believes in light of the entire record and instructions that the defendant was deprived of a substantial right.

1954In any event in Fields v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 439 , 188 P.2d 231 , it was said where an additional instruction is desired it is the duty of the defendant’s counsel to reduce the desired instruction to writing and request the giving thereof, and in the absence of such request a conviction will' not be reversed unless the Criminal Court of Appeals believes in light of the entire record and instructions that the defendant was deprived of a substantial right.

1933Moore v. O’Dell, 27 Okla. 194 , 111 P. 308 ; First Nat.

1933Moore v. O’Dell, 27 Okla. 194 , 111 P. 308 ; First Nat.

1924I. & P. v. Radford, 86 Okla. 657 , 129 Pac. 834 , the court said: “Where a special instruction is requested, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and submit to the court such desired instruction in writing properly numbered and signed, and upon timely delivery to the court requesting that it be given, upon a failure so to do, where the court has given general instructions applicable to the issues, and the evidence, this court will not consider as error the court’s failure to instruct of its own motion upon any given proposition.

1921Co. v. Radford, 36 Okla. 657 , 129 Pac. 835 , reads as follows: “Where a special instruction is requested, it is the duty of the counsel to prepare and submit to the court such desired instruction in writing, properly numbered and signed, and, upon timely delivery to the court, request that it be given.

1981In Skinner v. State, 439 P.2d 962 (Okl.Cr.1968), we stated that: If the counsel is dissatisfied with instructions given, or desires court to give particular instruction, or more definitely or sufficiently state any propositions embraced in instructions, it is counsel’s duty to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given.

1981In Skinner v. State, 439 P.2d 962 (Okl.Cr. 1968), we stated that: If the counsel is dissatisfied with instructions given, or desires court to give particular instruction, or more definitely or sufficiently state any propositions embraced in instructions, it is counsel's duty to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given.

1976In Schapansky v. State, Okl.Cr., 478 P.2d 912 , this Court held that where counsel is not satisfied with the instructions that are given, or desires the trial court to give any particular instruction, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the trial court such desired instruction and requested that it be given.

1963And, further, in the case of Buie v. State, Okl.Cr., 368 P.2d 663 : “Where counsel is dissatisfied with instructions that are given, or desires court to give any particular instruction, or to more definitely or sufficiently state any propositions embraced in instructions, it is duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given, and in absence of such request court will not reverse case if instructions generally cover subject matter of inquiry.” *238 The Instruction complained of could not possibly have prevented the defendant from having

1962But at no time in the proceedings did the defendant follow the procedure set forth in Perry v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 347 , 235 P.2d 963 , as follows: “Where counsel are dissatisfied with instructions that are given, or desire the court to give any particular instruction, or to more definitely or sufficiently state any propositions embraced in the instructions, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given, and in the absence of such request this court will not reverse the case where the instructions generally cover the subject m

1961Bayouth v. State, Okl.Cr., 294 P.2d 856 .

1959Where the defense amounts merely to a negation of guilt, and the trial court instructs fully upon the necessity to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as against the presumption of innocence, instructions will ordinarily be held to be sufficient to cover the issues." In Cochran v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 115 , 144 P.2d 751 , in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the syllabus, this court said: "Where the party desires the court to give any particular instruction, or to more definitely or fully state any proposition embraced in the charge, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desire

1959Where the defense amounts merely to a negation of guilt, and the trial court instructs fully upon the necessity to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as against the presumption of innocence, instructions will ordinarily be held to be sufficient to cover the issues." In Cochran v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 115 , 144 P.2d 751 , in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the syllabus, this court said: "Where the party desires the court to give any particular instruction, or to more definitely or fully state any proposition embraced in the charge, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desire

1954Taylor v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 368 , 236 P.2d 270 .

1954Taylor v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 368 , 236 P.2d 270 .

1944Huff v. Territory, 35 Okla. 376, 377 , 85 P. 241 ; Merriott v. State, supra; Dickson v. State, 25 Okla.

1944Huff v. Territory, 35 Okla. 376, 377 , 85 P. 241 ; Merriott v. State, supra; Dickson v. State, 25 Okla.