State of Oklahoma v. Jackie Owens

Ponca City, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with assault and battery by means of a deadly weapon with intent to kill.



MoreLaw was created to help people find experienced lawyers to represent them in the more than 3,144 counties across the United States. Click the link above to see a list of lawyers ready and willing to represent you if you have a legal problem and need help. Call: 918-582-6422 for help.



The defendant had come from Drumright to Cushing on the night of March 4, 1948 to attend a dance. The alleged assault occurred in the men's rest room at the dance hall. The evidence showed that the defendant had been drinking intoxicating liquor on the night in question and had had some difficulty with his companions, one of whom was slightly cut on the hand by the defendant.



* * *



This court has held that in a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, where the evidence tends to show justification in self-defense, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not to submit instructions covering the law of the case, and, where that has not been done, this court on appeal will reverse the judgment. Nelson v. State, 34 Okl.Cr. 187, 245 P. 1009; Daniel v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 174, 93 P.2d 47. However it is equally well settled that where there is no evidence to show justification in self-defense it is not necessary for the court to give such an instruction. Smith v. State, 22 Okl.Cr. 383, 212 P. 1012; Fabry v. State, 23 Okl.Cr. 215, 213 P. 910; Gaddy v. State, 81 Okl.Cr. 236, 162 P.2d 787.



* * *



Legal issue Must a court instruct a jury on self-defense in an assault case when no evidence of justification is presented?



CRIMINAL LAW. SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTIONS. The court was required to instruct the jury on self-defense in a prosecution for assault and battery with a deadly weapon if evidence suggested justification, failing which the conviction could be reversed.



CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND DUTIES. It is the duty of defense counsel to request additional instructions if deemed necessary, but a conviction will not be reversed unless omitting an instruction deprived the defendant of substantial rights.



CRIMINAL LAW. INSTRUCTION ON SELF-DEFENSE. The court need not instruct the jury on self-defense if no evidence supports such a justification, especially when the defendant did not testify.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. EVIDENCE IN ASSAULT CASES. The introduction of the victim's bloody clothing is permissible to demonstrate the location and nature of wounds in assault cases, barring potential prejudice.



CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING DISCRETION AND MODIFICATION. The court modified the defendant's sentence from three years to eighteen months imprisonment, considering the defendant's age and circumstances.

Key Paragraphs

Highlight Key Paragraphs

"...'In charging the jury, the court must state to them all matters of law which it thinks necessary for their information in giving their verdict. If counsel for defendant are of the opinion that additional instructions should be given to the jury, it is their duty to reduce them to writing, submit them to the trial judge, and request that they be given. If they fail to do this, a conviction will not be reversed unless the court is of the opinion, in the light of the entire record and instructions of the court, that by the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury upon some material question of law, the defendant has been deprived of his substantial rights....”

Key Phrases Assault with a dangerous weapon. Justifiable or excusable cause. Self-defense. Bloody clothes. Youthful offender.

The judgment and sentence of the District Court of Payne County was modified from three years imprisonment in the penitentiary to a term of eighteen months imprisonment in the penitentiary, and the judgment and sentence as thus modified is affirmed.