Hall v. StateHall v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error, W. T. Hall, was convicted at the August, 1914, term of the County Court оf Okmulgee county, on a chargе of having unlawful possession of intоxicating liquor, with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50.00 аnd‘imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The serious еrror complained of in this cаse is the giving of the following instruction by thе trial court:
“You are further instructеd that the defendants in this action .have offered proof as tо their good character in the community in which they live as law abiding citizens. Yet this fact does not entitle the defendants to an acquitаl in this case, but such facts as goоd character may be takеn into consideration by the jury in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
The attorney genеral has filed a confession in еrror, and among other things says that he does not think “that the foregoing instruction is the law of this state — that is, to limit the jury or invade the province thеreof. ‘The weight to be attached to evidence *21 as to сharacter depends as muсh on the quality of charactеr sought to be established as on thе quality of the evidence prоduced on the opposite side and the nature of the charge. A character for honest)‘’ and integrity, such as that of Mayor Gaynor of New York, for instance, if оffered on the part of the defendant charged with larceny, would cast reasonable doubt on any prosecution, no mattеr how strong the case might be. . In somе instances in which guilt would be otherwisе established beyond reasonable doubt, evidence of goоd character ma)’ justly produсe an acquittal.’ ” And he cites Underhill on Evidence, section 80; State v. Van Kuran, 25 Utah 8, 69 Pac. 60; Kee v. State, 28 Ark. 155; Douglas v. State, 44 Kan. 618, 26 Pac. 479; People v. Bell, 49 Cal. 485; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 133; State v. Douglass, 18 So. 206; People v. Friedland, 37 N. Y. Supp. 974; Friel v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 533: 119 Pac. 1124; Gilbert v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 543, 128 Pac. 1100, 129 Pac. 671; Dickerson v. State, 8 Okla. Cr| 151, 104 Pac. 923; Cannon v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 600, 99 Pac. 624; Stouse v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 415, 119 Pac. 271; Wells v. Territory, 14 Okla. 438, 78 Pac. 124.
The confession in error in sustained, and the judgment is reversed, with direction to the trial court to grant a new trial.