Campbell v. U. S., 1 Okla. Cr. 307, 97 P. 1052.

Where circumstantial evidence is relied on, the circumstances themselves must be proven.

Dossett v. U. S. 3 Okla. Cr. 591.

Circumstantial evidence must be such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Hazlewood v. Terr, 17 Okla. 515; Sies v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 142, 117 P. 502; Nash v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 1, 126 P. 260; Inklebarger v. State. 8 Okla. Cr. 316, 127 P. 707; Walker et al. v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 340, 127 P. 895; Brown v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 343, 156 P. 1150.

In case the state relies wholly on circumstantial evidence, the court should instruct accordingly.

Rutherford v. U. S. 1 Okla. Cr. 194, 95 P. 753; Kirk v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 203, 145 P. 307; Baldwin v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 229, 144 P. 634; Harris v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 412, 146 P. 1086; Pierson v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 382, 164 P. 1005.

Suggested instruction on circumstantial evidence.
Baldwin v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 233, 144 P. 634.

In case where state does not rely on circumstantial evidence alone instructions on circumstantial evidence need not be given.

Hendrix v. U. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 241, 101 P. 125; Brown v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 678, 126 P. 263; Star v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 211, 131 P. 542; Price v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 360, 131 P. 1102; Kinney v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 654, 179 P. 946.

Chain theory repudiated and cable theory adopted.

Ex parte Harkins, 7 Okla. Cr. 464, 124 P. 931; Ex parte Jefferies, 7 Okla. Cr. 544, 124 P. 924.

(Confessions and Admissions)

Admissibility of any statement made by defendant is not affected

P. 801.

by reason of an illegal arrest. Gilmore v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 434, 106 Confessions made under compulsion or hope are not admissible, but the burden of showing such is on the defendant. Kizer v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 267, 176 P. 92; Berry et al. v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 202.

That a person was not warned that his statements might be used against him does not affect admissibility of same. Anderson v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 91, 126 P. 840.

Admissions of defendant may be shown without direct attention of witness as to time, place, etc., but if witness denies such admission it is error to permit county attorney to testify as to such statements to him by the witness. Drury v. Terr., 9 Okla. 399.

State may prove admissions of guilt either on cross-examination or in rebuttal. David v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 535.

When the state introduces declarations of defendant against his interest, the defendant is entitled to show what he said in connection with such declarations. Foster v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 139, 126 P. 835. Defendant is not bound by statements made in his presence by other parties, and not denied by him. Ellis v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 522, 128 P 1095; Towery v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 216, 163 P. 331; Vaughn v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 685.

Conviction cannot be had upon extra-judicial confession of defendant, without evidence aliunde. Shires v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 89, 99 P. 1100; Choate v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 560, 160 P. 34; Waide v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 165, 162 P. 1139; Henry v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 189, 169 P.

Admissions and confessions of one defendant are not binding on his co-defendant. Ford et al. v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 240, 114 P. 273; Thomas et al. v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 415, 164 P. 995.

Admissions and confessions freely and fully made are admissible. Miller v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 176, 163 P. 131; Kearns v. State, 14 Okla Cr. 142, 168 P. 242.

Mere self-serving declarations, made to third parties at a place distant from the scene of crime, are not admissible. Hopkins v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 105, 130 P. 1101; Morris v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 241, 131 P. 731; Birdwell v. U. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 159, 135 P. 445; Seigler v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 131; Gransden v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 417, 158 P. 157. Dying Declarations:

See application of the rule of dying declarations. Bilton v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 566, 99 P. 163; Nelson v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 468, 106 P. 467; Hawkins v. U. S., 3 Okla. Cr. 651, 108 P. 561; Poling v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 27, 151 P. 895; Morehead v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 62. 151 P. 183; Williams v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 189, 163 P. 279; Thomas v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 414, 164 P. 995; Paden v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 585, 165 P. 1155. Proof of Other Crimes:

Commission of other crimes not admissible, except when they are a part of res gestae, or when they tend to establish the charge on trial. Green v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 595, 129 P. 683; Tempy v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 446, 132 P. 383; Dykes v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 602; Hamilton v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 291, 123 P. 571; Miller v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 256, 131 P. 717; Koontz v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 254, 139 P. 842; State v. Rule, 11 Okla. Cr. 237, 144 P. 807; Appleby v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 284, 146 P. 228; Miller v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 176, 163 P. 131; Montgomery v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 653, 166 P. 446; Tudor v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 67, 167 P. 341; Smith v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 348, 171 P. 341; Cross v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 318, 143 P. 202; Hunter v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 334, 107 P. 444. Venue:

Venue may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Harvey v. Terr., 11 Okla. 156; Ward v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 81, 162 P. 232; Brunson v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 467, 111 P. 988; Gritts v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 534, 118 P. 673, 120 P. 669.

Venue need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Fuller v. Terr., 2 Okla. Cr. 86, 99 P. 1098; Gritts v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 534, 118 P. 673.

Courts take judicial notice of the boundaries of counties, and of the geographical location of cities. Harvey v. Terr., 11 Okla. 157; Filson v. Terr., 11 Okla. 351; Reed v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 482, 98 P. 583; Johnson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 6, 112 P. 760; Spencer v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 7, 113 P. 224; Hunter v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 446, 119 P. 445.

Where there is no evidence of venue in the record, conviction will be reversed. Brunson v. State. 4 Okla. Cr. 467, 111 P. 988; Litchfield v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 164, 126 P. 707; Mullikin v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 261, 163 P. 1113.

Offense committed on Indian Reservation is within jurisdiction of Federal court. Herd et al. v. U. S., 13 Okla. 512.

Threats:

Where threats are relied on as a part of the reason for apprehending danger, any evidence is admissible which tends to show the true naturę and character of such threats. Price v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 358, 98 P. 447.

Admissible to generic threats or threats directed toward a class,—— their weight being for the jury. McDaniel et al. v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 209, 127 P. 358.

Communicated threats are admissible without first showing that such threats were actually made. Morris v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 618, 99 P. 760; White v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 143; Saunders v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 265; Rogers v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 226, 127 P. 365; Offit v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 48, 113 P. 554.

Uncommunicated threats are admissible for the purpose of showing deceased's state of mind toward defendant and who was the probable aggressor. Saunders v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 265.

Cross-Examination:

Courts have wide latitude in controlling and limiting cross-examination. Watkins v. U. S., 5 Okla. 729; Harrold v. Terr., 18 Okla. 395; Hopkins v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 105, 130 P. 1101; Hager v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 9, 133 P. 263.

But such discretion should be guarded to preserve rights of defendant as well as the witness. Scott v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 225, 163 P. 553; and cases cited above.

Proper to show bias, prejudice, friendship, enmity, or the relationship of witness to any of the parties to the cause. Gilbert v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 543, 128 P. 1100, 129 P. 671.

The occupation, manner of living and companions of a witness may be inquired into. Fowler v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 130, 126 P. 831; Irvine v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 4, 133 r. 259; Murphy v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 312, 176 P. 417; Sights v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 627, 166 P. 459.

Improper to ask witness if he has ever been charged, arrested, or imprisoned; but may be asked if he has been convicted of any felony, or of any crime which involves moral turpitude or want of moral character. Price v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 291, 97 P. 1056; Keys v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 647, 103 P. 874; Musgrave v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 421, 106 P. 544; White v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 143, 111 P. 1010; Hendrix v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 611, 113 P. 244; Nelson v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 469, 106 P. 647; Crawford v. Ferguson, 5 Okla. Cr. 377, 115 P. 278; Slater v. U. S., 1 Okla. Cr. 275, 98 P. 110.

And the state may show the nature of crime of which witness has been convicted. McDaniel v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 209, 127 P. 358; Key v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 206, 135 P. 950; Busby v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 343, 136 P. 598; Prather v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 327, 170 P. 1176; Smith v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 348, 171 P. 341.

Witness may be asked if he was drinking at or about the time of the transactions about which he gives testimony. Rogers v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 227, 127 P. 365.

Impeachment:

Witness may be asked any question which tends to discredit him. Cannon v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 600, 99 P. 622.

Improper impeachment on immaterial testimony is harmless. Caples v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 72, 104 P. 493.

Witness cannot be impeached by proof of general bad character for immorality, nor by specific acts. Litchfield v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 164,

126 P. 707.

Defendant's reputation cannot be shown except in rebuttal, unless it be an element of the offense. Porter v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 64, 126 P. 699; Wilkerson v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 662, 132 P. 1120; Edmons v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 603, 132 P. 923; Kirk v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 203, 145

P. 307; Upton v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 593, 160 P. 1134; Montgomery v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 415, 142 P. 1048.

Where the testimony of a witness has been contradicted, the witness himself may be supported by evidence of good reputation for truth and veracity. Friel v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 532, 119 P. 1124; Gilber v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 329, 127 P. 889.

Defendant may show contradictory statements of prosecuting witness. Collingwood v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 443, 164 P. 1154; Scofield v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 447; 165 P. 210.

Where prosecuting witness has been thoroughly impeached, the state not showing his good reputation for truth, the admission of evidence to bolster the testimony of one of the prosecuting witnesses is error. Newton v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 569, 174 P. 289.

A party who has been deceived and entrapped by the testimony of his witness, may show previous statements of such witness, etc. Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 364, 102 P. 57; Paris v. U. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 601, 115 P. 373.

times. 199.

Admissible to show different statements of same matter at different Harmon v. Terr., 15 Okla. 147; Ludenbeck v. Terr., 19 Okla. Contrary statements made by third party in presence of witness cannot be shown, unless such statements were authorized by the witness. Tucker v. Terr., 17 Okla. 56.

On taking stand, defendant subjects himself to cross-examination and impeachment. Richards et al. v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 224, 154 P. 72; Smith v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 348, 171 P. 341.

Impeachment for truth and veracity must be by showing witness' general reputation in the community in which he resides. Richards et al. v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 224, 154 P. 72.

A co-defendant who gives testimony against a defendant, may be impeached by the defendant on trial, unless he has placed him on the stand himself. Frazee et al. v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 134, 152 P. 462. Evidence Taken at Previous Hearing:

The testimony of a witness taken at a preliminary examination, where defendant is present and has had opportunity of cross-examination, may be used in the trial of the cause, provided proper showing is made of the absence of such witness. Driggers v. U. S., 1 Okla. Cr. 167, 95 P. 612; Hawkins v. U. S., 3 Okla. Cr. 652, 108 P. 561; Mendenhall v. U. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 436, 119 P. 594; Wadsworth v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 84, 130 P. 808; Edwards v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 306, 131 P. 956; Jeffries v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 146, 162 P. 1137; Fitzsimmons v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 80, 166 P. 453; Smallwood v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 125, 167 P. 1154; Kearns v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 142, 168 P. 242; Beshirs v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 578; Carnes v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 585; Davis v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 386, 177 P. 621; Davis v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 427, 177 P. 625. (Miscellaneous)

Error to admit evidence of overtures to purchase witness to testify in behalf of defendant, unless defendant was responsible therefor. Bruner v. U. S., 1 Okla. Cr. 205, 96 P. 597.

The interest of a witness in the result of a case may be shown. Jones v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 547, 179 P. 619.

Not error for reporter to read testimony of witness to jury in absence of counsel when defendant is present. Gunnells v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 98. 122 P. 264.

Evidence of defendant's fight is admissible against him. Pittman v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 58, 126 P. 696.

But defendant may offer evidence to explain his motive for flight. Jackson v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 406, 157 P. 945.

Burden of proof never shifts to defendant to establish even to a reasonable probability, the truth of the affirmative defense. McClatchey v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 173, 152 P. 1136.

Error to admit evidence of defendant's general reputation for the commission of other or similar crimes. Cantrell v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 534, 159 P. 1092.

Not admissible to show statements of witness made before trial to be consistent with his testimony. Jackson v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 406, 157 P. 945.

A conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of two state witnesses, they testifying directly opposite as to defendant's guilt. Jackson v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 446, 158 P. 292.

Trial judge may ask questions of a witness, but in doing so should not indicate his opinion as to the weight of evidence. Smith et al. v. State ex rel. Gallaher, 12 Okla. Cr. 513, 159 P. 941.

State may show relations between witness and accused.

State, 12 Okla. Cr. 289, 155 P. 489.

Daggs v.

Any fact is admissible to show preparation on part of defendant to commit the act. Terry v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 430, 122 P. 559.

A motive may exist on inaccurate information. Irvin v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 302, 146 P. 453.

Admissible to show that defendant had such weapon in his possession as is alleged to have inflicted the injury. Morgan v. Terr., 16 Okla. 530. The admission of photographs in evidence of a place or premises, on which it is charged that the offense was committed, is within the discretion of the court. Photographs of persons, when shown to be correct, are admissible. Morris v. Terr., 1 Okla. Cr. 617, 99 P. 760; Morris v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 30.

Also of things. Grayson v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 226, 154 P. 334.

As a general rule, leading and suggestive questions should not be asked by the party placing the witness on the stand. Mulkey v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 75, 113 P. 532.

But where witness proves hostile to the party calling him, the trial court may permit leading and suggestive questions. Ostendorf v. State 8 Okla. Cr. 363, 128 P. 143.

Also, where diffidence of witness is occasioned by reason of sex and tender years. Lee v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 141, 122 P. 1111.

When a fact is proven by both state and defendant, the court may assume such to be true and instruct accordingly. Stewart v. Terr., 2 Okla. Cr. 63, 100 P. 47; Bartell v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 135.

Admitting or refusing evidence which in no way affects the substantial rights of defendant, is immaterial. Smith v. Terr., 14 Okla. 162.

Approved instructions on weight of evidence. Nelson v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 469, 106 P. 467.

Incompetent and improper evidence may be rebutted without waiving objections to introduction of such evidence in the first instance. Hawkins v. U. S., 3 Okla. Cr. 652, 108 P. 561.

When it becomes material why a witness went to a certain place, he should be permited to explain the reason therefor. Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 390, 111 P. 978.

Proof of motive always admissible as to intent of defendant. lins v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 97, 175 P. 124.

Col