Instructions should avoid covering the surplus language in an information. Jenkins v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 168, 145 P. 500.

An instruction should not omit the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." Reemer v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 707, 109 P. 247.

Not error to omit the "presumption of innocence" when the "reasonable doubt" element is included. Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 393; Beatty v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 106, 113 P. 237; Jenkins v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 168, 145 P. 500.

Error to instruct

* ** "and if you entertain a reasonable doubt of the guilt or innocence of the defendant *. Findley v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 128, 162 P. 680.

Instructions on credibility of impeached witnesses should be given when warranted by the evidence. Smith v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 349, 171 P. 341.

Suggested instruction on credibility of impeached testimony: "If you believe from the evidence that any witness has wilfully and knowingly sworn falsely as to any material matter, then you may, if you deem proper, disregard the entire testimony of such witness, unless you find it corroborated on other points by other and credible evidence; or you may, without such corroboration, give the testimony of such witness on other points such weight and value as you think it entitled to have, the jury being the sole judges of the credibility of all the witnesses and the weight and value to be given their testimony." Billingsley v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 600.

Technical objections to instructions will not be considered, unless fundamental. West v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 312, 164 P. 327; Bell v. State. 14 Okla. Cr. 167, 168 P. 827; Wilson v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 633; Munson v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 570, 165 P. 1162; Paden v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 585, 165 P. 1155; Smith v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 619, 166 P. 463; Neal v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 690, 167 P. 333; Dooling et al. v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 491, 106 P. 982; Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 390, 111 P. 978; Cooper v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 142, 152 P. 608; Grandsden v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 417, 158 P. 157; White v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 144; Spencer v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 7, 113 P. 224; Killough v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 312, 118 P. 620; Lyon v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 407, 146 P. 1084; Jefferson v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 425, 147 P. 778; Nutt v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 266, 128 P. 165; Cave v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 258, 100 P. 1118; Glaze v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 431, 165 P. 211; Morris v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 233; Gray v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 292.

In close case of evidence, instructions should be free from error. Humphrey v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 449, 128 P. 742. Instructions on character,-approved. 607. 99 P. 622; Wilson v. State, 3 Okla. v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 274, 118 P. 594.

Court may give additional instructions 231, 105 P. 314.

Cannon v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr.
Cr. 718, 109 P. 289; Coleman

Rhea v. Terr., 3 Okla. Cr.

Not error to fail to define legal terms in instructions, unless requested to do so. Fooshee v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 668, 108 P. 554.

When a fact has been proven by both prosecution and defense, and not disputed, it may be assumed to be true for the purpose of instructing. Stewart v. Terr.. 2 Okla. Cr. 63, 100 P. 47; Bartell v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 135.

Instructions should be based on the testimony given and the theory that it is true. Douglass v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 584, 98 P. 1023; Crittenden v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 351. 164 P. 675; Reed v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 16, 103 P. 1070; Payton v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 316

J

Not error to instruct that charge is brought under certain section or provision of law. Peters v. U. S., 2 Okla. 138.

Error to instruct that, "if the circumstances will as well apply to another person as to the defendant," etc. Dossett v. U. S., 3 Okla. 591. Giving or refusing instructions on any particular phase of the testimony will not be reviewed, unless the testimony itself is preserved. Rhea v. U. S., 6 Okla. 249.

Instructions will not be reviewed unless objected to at the time of giving same, and unless called to attention of trial court in motion for new trial, unless fundamentally wrong. Heatley v. Terr., 15 Okla. 72; Glenny v. Terr., 15 Okla. 231; Sparks v. Terr., 16 Okla. 127; Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 390, 111 P. 978; Ford et al. v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 241, 114 P. 273; Ryan v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 624, 129 P. 685; Poling v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 27, 151 P. 895; Eccleston v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 106, 152 P. 337; May v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 108, 152 P. 338; Maddox v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 462, 158 P. 883.

Special instructions should be refused where same proposition is covered by general instructions. Manning v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 367, 123 P. 1029; Spencer v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 7, 113 P. 224; Smith v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 282, 114 P. 350; Boutcher v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 576, 111 P. 1006: Ryan v. State, 8 Okla. (r. 623, 129 P. 685; Miller v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 55, 130 P. 813; McClatchey v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 448, 177 P. 922; Conley v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 531, 179 P. 480; Smith v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 250, 174 P. 1107; Kearns v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 143, 168 P. 242; Horn v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 354, 164 P. 683.

Detached parts of instructions will not be considered on appeal. Rogers v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 434.

Argumentative instructions should not be given. Dunn v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 246, 176 P. 86; Price v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 359, 98 P. 447.

A correct instruction should not be given prominence by repetition. Price v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 359, 98 P. 447.

Except in capital case, it will be presumed that defendant is satisfied with the instructions given in the absence of request for special instructions. Price v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 508, 99 P. 157; Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 390, 111 P. 978.

A requested instruction, though improper in form, if incorrect, should be corrected and given. Robertson v. U. S., 4 Okla. Cr. 337.

Error to fail to instruct on both the maximum and minimum punishment. Colber v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 487.

Error to instruct for a different and higher punishment than fixed by law. Wells v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 22, 113 P. 210.

Error to fix minimum punishment when there is no minimum. Lewis v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 164, 117 P. 722.

Not error to fix a punishment less than that fixed by law. Coleman v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 253, 118 P. 594.

Instructions should not authorize any punishment other than that provided by law. Beck v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 3, 166 P. 753.

Error to instruct that jury are not bound by the instructions. Hobbs v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 598, 132 P. 822.

Trial court has no authority to allow exceptions to instructions which are not actually taken at the time the instructions are given. Patterson v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 542.

Counsel should be allowed time in which to examine instructions, and to offer suggested instructions, and should be required to point out objections to any offered instructions. Boutcher v. State, 4 Okla. Cr.

585; Thompson v. State, 6 Okla: Cr. 51, 117 P. 216; Fowler v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 130, 126 P. 831; Brewer v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 515, 165 P. 634. An instruction should define an offense sufficient to inform the jury what facts are necessary to be established. Brock v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 23.

Sufficiency of instructions and the action of the court in refusing and giving same, must always be determined by the facts. in each case. Anderson v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 91, 126 P. 840.

Negative instructions should not be given. Weber v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 329, 101 P. 355; Hedden v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 588, 103 P. 737; Clendenning v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 379, 106 P. 540; Young v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 380, 106 P. 555; Membrauer v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 429, 106 P. 559; McGill v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 500, 129 P. 75; Vaugn v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 121, 130 P. 1100; Findley v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 128, 162 P. 680.

Defendant cannot be heard to complain of instructions given at his request. Patterson v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 542; Boswell v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 152, 126 P. 826.

857. Jury After the Charge-After hearing the charge, the jury may either decide in court, or may retire for deliberation. If they do not agree without retiring, one or more officers must be sworn to keep them together in some private and convenient place, and not to permit any person to speak to or communicate with them, nor do so themselves, unless it be by order of the court, or to ask them whether they have agreed upon a verdict, and to return them into court when they have so agreed, or when ordered by the court. (5906 R. L. 1910.)

Separation of the jury will vitiate verdict. Bilton v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 566, 99 P. 163; Sample v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 430, 106 P. 557; Selstrom v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 345, 123 P. 557 ; Goins v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 35, 130 P. 513; Weatherholt v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 161, 131 P. 185; Chance v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 194, 113 P. 996.

After being discharged, jury cannot reconvene for purpose of further deliberating. Petitti v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 131, 100 P. 1122.

Error for the judge to go to the jury room and converse with the jury about their verdict. Watson v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 508, 124 P. 329. Custody and conduct of jury before cause submitted, see Section 853. 858. Defendant May be Committed During Trial-When a defendant who has given bail appears for trial, the court may, in its discretion, at any time after his appearance for trial order him to be committed to the custody of the proper officer of the county to abide the judgment or further order of the court, and he must be committed and held in custody accordingly. (5907 R. L. 1910.)

859. Duty of Court Reporter-It shall be the duty of the court reporter to take down in shorthand and to correctly transcribe, when required, all the proceedings upon the trial of any cause, as well as all statements of counsel, the witnesses or the court, made during the trial of any cause or

with reference to any cause pending for trial, when required by a party or attorney interested therein, and all other matters that might properly be a part of a case-made for appeal or proceeding in error. An attorney in any case pending shall have the right to request of the court or stenographer that all such statements or proceedings occurring in the presence of the stenographer, or when his presence is required by such attorney, shall be taken and transcribed. A refusal of the court to permit or, when requested, to require any statement to be taken down by the stenographer, or transcribed after being taken down, upon the same being shown by affidavit or other direct and competent evidence, to the supreme court, shall be deemed prejudicial error, without regard to the merits thereof. (1786 R. L. 1910.)

Refusal of the court to have any matter taken in shorthand which might be a proper part in a transcript or case-made, is error, regardless of the merits of the case. Lamm v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 641; Walker v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 370, 118 P. 1005; Corliss v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 526, 159 P. 1015; Tudor v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 67, 167 P. 341; Wiswell v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 517, 173 P. 662; Helm v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 404, 146 P. 1083.

See rule for preserving testimony offered and rejected by the court. White v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 144.

(General Notes)

Remarks of judge affecting character and credibility of witness is error. Wilson v. Terr., 9 Okla. 331; Slater v. U. S., 1 Okla. Cr. 275, 98 P. 110; Hicks v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 626, 103 P. 873; Havill v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 22, 121 P. 794; Reed v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 305, 114 P. 1114; Koontz v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 553, 139 P. 842; Harrison v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 14, 141 P. 236; Braumbraugh v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 596; Morris v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 630; Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 390, 111 P. 978; Bond v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 696, 129 P. 666; Arnold v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 520, 178 P. 897.

Error to exclude any evidence which might tend to a defense. Turner v. Terr., 11 Okla. 660.

The interest of a witness, the weight and sufficiency of his evidence is a question for the jury. Miller v. Terr., 15 Okla. 422; Gray v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 102, P. 265; Caido v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 139, 122 P. 734; Hunt v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 481; Nelson v. State. 14 Okla. Cr. 153, 162 P. 460.

See instruction which is held as a comment on the weight of the evidence. Fooshee v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 668. 108 P. 554.

Improper to instruct that the testimony of a detective should be received with caution. Reemer v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 707, 109 P. 247.

An order in the presence of the jury that a witness be held for perjury is an expression of an opinion on the weight of the evidence. Wilson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 367. 114 P. 1126.

The jury are not bound to believe a witness because his testimony is uncontradicted and not directly impeached. Bayless v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 28, 130 P. 520.

Conduct and remarks of counsel.-nature and character of same. Lamm et al. v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 641; Tucker v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 588,

132 P. 825; Bouie v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 345, 131 P. 953; Crump v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 535, 124 P. 632; Gunnells v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 98, 122 P. 264; Eakins v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 352, 123 P. 1035; Star v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 210, 131 P. 542; Anderson v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 491, 124 P. 86; Boutcher v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 576; Cox v. Terr., 2 Okla. Cr. 668, 104 P. 378; Mulkey v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 76, 113 P. 532; Sights v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 627, 166 P. 459; O'Barr v. U. S., 3 Okla. Cr. 319, 105 P. 988; Watson v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 590, 124 P. 1101; Appleby v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 284, 146 P. 228; Nelson v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 153, 162 P. 460; Williams v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 524; Prather v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 327, 170 P. 1176; Reed v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 592. 103 P. 1042; Thacker v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 485, 106 P. 986; Wood v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 554, 107 P. 937; Davis v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 322, 123 P. 560; Allen v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 395, 164 P. 1002; Morgan v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 22, 130 P. 522; Childs v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 461, 165 P. 622; Buck v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 517, 98 P. 1017; Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 365, 102 P. 57; Johnson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113 P. 552; Walker v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 370, 118 P. 1005; Nowlin v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 27, 121 P. 791; Miller v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 256, 131 P. 717; Edwards v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 306, 131 P. 956; Irvine v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 4, 133 P. 259; Reed v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 652, 174 P. 800; Collins v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 97, 175 P. 124; Cope v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 438, 177 P. 920.

Not error to limit time of argument unless it affirmatively appears that counsel could not conclude within time limited. Williams v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 100, 167 P. 763.

Failure to read information and state plea of defendant to the jury is waived where no objections are taken at the time. White v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 577, 139 P. 1154.

Defendant is entitled to be tried under the laws as they existed at the time of the commission of the offense. O'Barr v. U. S., 3 Okla. Cr. 319, 105 P. 988; Jones v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 593, 107 P. 738. Journal entry sufficient to show that jury was sworn. Terr.. 3 Okla. 588.

Brink v.