testimony of professional detectives.70 granted that the statements contained in the hypothetical questions are true," although it has been held that it is not necessary to give such an instruction." 78 [§ 2440] c. Manner of Determining Credibility in General.79 As a general rule, an instruction which tells the jury that they are the sole judges of the facts and the weight of the evidence, and that in determining the credit, weight, and value to be attached to the testimony of any witness they should consider his appearance, character, and intelligence, his manner of testifying, his interest, if any, in the result, his relation to, or feeling for, defendant or deceased, the probability of his statements, as well as all other facts and circumstances detailed in evidence, is sufficient and proper to be given,s So unless some good reason appears for spe Expert witnesses.71 An instruction on the credibility of expert witnesses and the value to be given their testimony should charge clearly and correctly the principles of law applicable thereto.72 It is proper to instruct that the testimony of experts is subject to the same rules of credit or discredit as the testimony of other witnesses,73 and that such testimony neither establishes nor tends to establish the truth of the facts upon which it is based;74 but that whether the matters testified to as facts are true or false is to be determined by the jury alone,75 and that they must also determine whether the facts and matters stated and submitted to the experts in the hypothetical quesions are true in fact, and have been proved in the case.76 It is proper to instruct that the jury should not take for termine the weight of the evidence Cal-Peo. v. Glass, 158 Cal. 650, and to pass on the credibility of wit- 112 P 281: Peo. v. Jailles, 146 Cal. nesses. Lorenz v. U. S., 24 App. (D. 301, 79 P 965; Peo. v. Miles, 143 Cal. C.) 337. 636, 77 P 666; Peo. v. Knapp, 71 Cal. 1, 11 P 793; Peo. v. Sheffield, 9 Cal. A. 130, 98 P 67; Peo. v. Waysman, 1 Cal. A. 246, 81 P 1087. 70. State v. Snyder, 8 Kan. A. 686, 57 P 135; State v. Shew, 8 Kan. A. 679, 57 P 137. 71. Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2337. 72. Colbert v. State, 125 Wis. 423, 104 NW 61. [a] Instructions held proper or erroneously refused.-Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 NE 491. [b] Instructions held erroneous or properly refused. (1) Perkins v. U. S., 228 Fed. 408, 142 CCA 638; Peo. v. Kirby, 15 Cal. A. 264, 114 P 794 (instruction held erroneous as stating no principle of law); Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492; State v. Wertz, 191 Mo. 569, 90 SW 838. (2) A charge that the jury are to consider evidence of expert witnesses as they do evidence of other witnesses, and can believe it in preference to other evidence if there is a conflict, is properly refused, where the request leaves out any consideration of the credibility of the witnesses themselves, or of their opportunity for knowing the facts to which they testified. Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138, 51 SE 322. (3) It is not error to refuse to give a long instruction in the nature of a philosophical discussion of expert evidence taken bodily from one of the opinions of a reported case. Colbert v. State, 125 Wis. 423, 104 NW 61. Expert testimony generally see Evidence [17 Cyc 224 et seq]. 73. Ark. Williams V. State, 50 Ark. 511, 9 SW 5. Ind.-Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 NE 491. La.-State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 S 890. Mo.-State v. Crane. 202 Mo. 54, 100 SW 422; State v. Wertz, 191 Mo. 569, 90 SW 838. Tenn.-Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 SW 353, 13 LRANS 1031; Wilcox v. State, 94 Tenn. 106, 28 SW 312. 74. State v. Crane, 202 Mo. 54, 100 SW 422; State v. Wertz, 191 Mo. 569, 90 SW 838. 75. State v. Crane, 202 Mo. 54, 100 SW 422; State v. Wertz, 191 Mo. 569, 90 SW 838. 76. State v. Crane, 202 Mo. 54, 100 SW 422. 77. Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550; Guetig v. State, 66 Ind. 94, 32 AmR 99. 78. State v. Daly, 210 Mo. 664, 109 SW 53; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, 5 SW 257, 330. 79. Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2340. 80. U. S.--Shelp v. U. S., 81 Fed. 694, 26 CCA 570. Ala. Norris v. State, 87 Ala. 85, 6 S 371; Storey v. State, 71 Ala. 329. Ark. Snyder v. State, 86 Ark. 456, 111 SW 465; Felker v. State, 54 Ark. 489, 16 SW 663. Colo.-Porter v. Peo., 31 Colo. 508, 74 P 879. Conn.-State v. Saxon, 87 Conn. 5, 86 A 590. Del.-State v. Wyatt, 27 Del. 473, 89 A 217; State v. Dougherty, 27 Del. 163, 86 A 736; State v. Johnson, 26 Del. 472, 84 A 1040; State v. Brown, 26 Del. 499, 85 A 797. Fla.-Tucker v. State, 64 Fla. 518, 59 S 941; Jordan v. State, 50 Fla. 94, 39 S 155. Ga.-Rouse v. State, 136 Ga. 356, 71 SE 667; Jordan v. State, 130 Ga, 406, 60 SE 1063; Smith v. State, 124 Ga. 213, 52 SE 329; Wheeler v. State, 112 Ga. 43, 37 SE 126; Howard v. State, 73 Ga. 83. Il-Peo. v. Fox, 269 Ill. 300, 110 NE 26: Peo. v. Curtright, 258 Ill. 430, 101 NE 551; Peo. v. Goodrich, 251 Ill. 558, 96 NE 542; Siebert v. Peo., 143 Ill. 571, 32 NE 431; Bressler v. Peo., 117 Ill. 422, 8 NE 62; Belt v. Peo., 97 Ill. 461; Peo. v. Dietmeyer, 164 Ill. A. 405. Ind.-Baker v. State, 174 Ind. 708, 93 NE 14; Dunn v. State, 166 Ind. 694, 78 NE 198; Kessier v. State, 154 Ind. 242, 56 NE 232; Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 39 NE 930; Anderson v. State, 104 Ind. 467, 4 NE 63, 5 NE 711; Jones v. State, 64 Ind. 473 Goodwine v. State, 5 Ind. A. 63, 31 NE 554. Iowa.-State v. Olds, 106 Iowa 110, 76 NW 644. Kan.-State v. Gray, 90 Kan. 486, 135 P 566. Miss. Poole v. State, 100 Miss. 158, 56 S 184; Waldrop v. State, 98 Miss. 567, 54 S 66; Vails v. State, 94 Miss. 365, 48 S 725; Howard v. State, 83 Miss. 378, 35 S 653: Brown v. State, 75 Miss. 842, 23 S 422. Mo.-State v. McDonough, 232 Mo. 219, 134 SW 545; State v. Shelton, 223 Mo. 118, 122 SW 732; State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo. 54, 119 SW 405; State v. Sharpless, 212 Mo. 176, 111 SW 69; State v. Adair, 160 Mo. 391, 61 SW 187; State v. Hilsabeck, 132 Mo. 348, 34 SW 38; State v. Hicks, 92 Mo. 431, 4 SW 742. Mont.-State V. Mont. 41, 85 P 376. Beesskove, 34 Nebr.-Wheeler v. State, 79 Nebr. 491, 113 NW 253; Keating v. State, 67 Nebr. 560, 93 NW 980; Clary v. State, 61 Nebr. 688, 85 NW 897; Chezem v. State, 56 Nebr. 496, 76 NW 1056. N. J.- -State v. Rodesky, 86 N. J. L. 220, 90 A 1099; State v. Dugan, 84 N. J. L. 603, 89 A 691 [aff 85 N. J. L. 730, 89 A 1135]. N. M.-Faulkner v. Terr., 6 N. M. 464, 30 P 905. N. Y.-Peo. v. Butler, 62 App. Div. 508, 71 NYS 129, 15 N. Y. Cr. 505. N. C.-State v. Cloninger, 149 N. C. 567, 63 SE 154; State v. Davis, 15 N. C. 612. N. D.-State v. Ramsey, 31 N. D. 626, 154 NW 731. Okl.-Nelson v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 468, 106 P 647. Or.-State v. Chandler, 57 Or. 561, 112 P 1087. Tex.-Lancaster v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. 16, 35 SW 165; Adam v. State, (Cr.) 20 SW 548. Utah.-State v. Morgan, 27 Utah 103, 74 P 526. Va.-Horton v. Com., 99 Va. 848, 38 SE 184. Wash.-State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528, 67 P 1097: State v. Hashor, 26 Wash. 643, 67 P 386. W. Va.-State v. Koch, 75 W. Va. 648, 84 SE 510. Wis.-Heubner v. State, 131 Wis. 162, 111 NW 63; Schultz v. State, 125 Wis. 452, 104 NW 90. Wyo. Nicholson v. State, 18 Wyo. 298, 106 P 929; Haines v. Terr., 3 Wyo. 167, 13 P 8. [a] Character of witness.—(1) Instructions held proper. State V. Martin, 230 Mo. 680, 132 SW 595; State v. Cloninger, 149 N. C. 567, 63 SE 154. (2) Instruction held erroneous. Spicer v. State, 105 Ala. 123, 16 S 706. [b] Intelligence of witness.-Instructions held proper. Peo. v. Miles, 143 Cal. 636, 77 P 666; Jordan V. State, 50 Fla. 94, 39 S 155. [c] Interest or bias of witness.Instructions held sufficient. (1) Weaver v. State, 1 Ala. A. 48, 55 S 956; Peo. v. Amaya, 134 Cal. 531, 66 P 794; State v. Miller, 190 Mo. 449, 89 SW 377; State v. Lance, 166 N. C. 111, 81 SE 1092. (2) Instructions held erroneous. Myers v. State, 97 Ga. 76, 25 SE 252; Gaines v. State, (Miss.) 48 S 182. Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2340. [d] Relationship of witness.—(1) Instructions held proper. Keesier v. State, 154 Ind. 242, 56 NE 232; Van Buren v. State, 63 Nebr. 453, 88 NW 671; State v. Fogleman, 164 N. C. 458, 79 SE 879. (2) A charge that the jury should scrutinize the testimony of defendant's near relatives, but that, if they believe the witnesses to be credible, they should give their testimony as full weight as that of other witnesses, is proper. State v. McDowell, 129 N. C. 523, 39 SE 840; State v. Apple, 121 N. C. 584, 28 SE 469. (3) An instruction that, in considering the evidence given by defendant and his wife, the jury will consider the relationship and interests of the parties, is proper. State v. Kyle, 259 Mo. 401, 168 SW 681; State v. Hyder, 258 Mo. 225, 167 SW 524; State v. Napper, 141 Mo. 401, 42 SW 957. (4) Instructions held erroneous. Mitchell v. State, 133 Ala. 65, 32 S 132; State v. Lee, 121 N. C. 544, 28 SE 552. Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2337. [e] Coindictee.-A cautionary instruction, on the ground of interest, as to the testimony of defendant or of the wife or the husband testifying cially cautioning the jury.81 But it is not necessary to instruct the jury to consider a particular fact or circumstance which they hardly could fail to consider;82 and it is improper to instruct the jury that they may take into consideration surrounding circumstances at the trial which do not appear in the evidence.83 [§ 2441] d. Effect of Impeaching Evidence.84 Where the effect of impeaching evidence is referred to in the charge proper and adequate instructions thereon should be given.85 Such an instruction should embrace all the methods of impeachment as far as authorized by the evidence.se It is proper to charge on the preliminaries which must be proved before contradictory statements 87 or the general bad character of the witness can be proved.88 It is also proper to charge that it is for the jury to determine whether a witness has been successfully impeached; that if the jury do not believe on all the evidence that the witness sought 89 for defendant, authorized by statute, is not authorized as to the testimony of a coindictee of defendant, not on trial, but testifying for him. State v. Mintz, 245 Mo. 540, 150 SW 1042, 43 LRANS 146. 81. State v. Gray, 90 Kan. 486, 135 P 566; State v. Rachman, 68 N. J. L. 120, 53 A 1046, [a] On a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, the court may caution the jury as to the credibility of the testimony given by the thief. State v. Rachman, 68 N. J. L. 120, 53 A 1046. 82. State v. Marsee, 93 Kan. 600, 144 P 833. 83. Peo. v. Fox, 269 Ill. 300, 110 NE 26; Peo. v. Terrell, 262 Ill. 138, 104 NE 264. 84. Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2341. Necessity of instructions see supra § 2438. 85. Ala. Mims v. State, 141 Ala. 93, 37 S 354. Ark. Snyder v. State, 86 Ark. 456, 111 SW 465. Cal.-Peo. v. Corey, 8 Cal. A. 720, 97 P 907. Ga. Reinhart v. State, 102 Ga. 690, 29 SE 443; Harper v. State, 17 Ga. A. 561, 87 SE 808; Robinson v. State, 10 Ga. A. 462, 73 SE 622; Woodard v. State, 5 Ga. A. 447, 63 SE 573; Rouse v. State, 2 Ga. A. 184, 58 SE 416. Ill-Peo. v. Grosenheider, 266 Ill. 324, 107 NE 607. Iowa.-State v. Davis, 74 Iowa 578, 38 NW 424. to be impeached made the contradictory statements attributed to him, the witness is not impeached;" and that if they do not believe that the attempt to impeach has been successful, they will not regard the evidence in the case so far as it relates to the impeachment of the witness.91 Although it has been held proper to instruct that if the jury believe that the attempt to impeach has been successful, they should disregard the testimony of the witness, unless corroborated by other facts in the case,92 as a general rule an instruction is proper which charges, in substance, that it does not follow that because a witness may be impeached his testimony shall be entirely excluded from consideration, and that, in such case, it is for the jury to decide for themselves what weight shall be given to the testimony of such a witness, taking into consideration all corroborating circumstances and testimony, if any exist;93 that they may disregard his testimony, except where corroborated by other testimony not so 134 SW 689; Hunter v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 439, 129 SW 125; Marek v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 428, 94 SW 469; Cline v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 482, 27 SW 128: Howard v. State, 25 Tex. A. 686, 8 SW 929. [b] Instructions held erroneous or properly refused.-Patton v. State, 156 Ala. 23, 46 S 862; Rose v. State, 144 Ala. 114, 42 S 21; Osborn v. State, 125 Ala. 106, 27 S 758; Cobb v. State, 115 Ala. 18, 22 S 506; Maxwell v. State, 11 Ala. A. 53, 65 S 732; Snyder v. State, 86 Ark. 456, 111 SW 465; Hodge v. State, 116 Ga. 929, 43 SE 370; Plummer v. State, 111 Ga. 839, 36 SE 233; Healy v. Peo., 163 Ill. 372, 45 NE 230; Peo. v. Spencer, 171 Ill. A. 237; Terry v. Peo., 81 Ill. A. 27; State v. Davis, 74 Iowa 578, 38 NW 424; State v. Kelley, 191 Mo. 680, 90 SW 834; Elkins v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 205, 87 SW 149; Dean v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 77 SW 803; Druse v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 38 SW 803. [c] Naming witness not necessary.-(1) In charging on the impeachment of witnesses, it is not necessary to name the witness whose credibility is attacked, but only to instruct as to the rules on the subject of impeachment, leaving the jury, to make the application of the rules to the witnesses. Woodard v. State, 5 Ga. A. 447, 63 SE 573. (2) The jury should be told that the evidence must be used for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witnesses whose evidence is sought to be impeached. Pratt v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 227, 96 Miss. Owens v. State, 80 Miss. 499, SW 8. 32 S 152. N. J.-State v. Rosa, 72 N. J. L. 462, 62 A 695. Or.-State v. Chandler, 57 Or. 561, 112 P 1087. Pa.-Com. v. House, 223 Pa. 487, 72 A 804 [rev 36 Pa. Super. 363]. Tex.-Pratt v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 227, 96 SW 8; Marek v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 428, 94 SW 469; Harrell v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 204, 45 SW 581. Vt.-State v. Roberts, 63 Vt. 139, 21 A 424. V. [1] Instructions held sufficient or improperly refused.-Bondurant State, 125 Ala. 31. 27 S 775; Peo. v. Corey, 8 Cal. A. 720, 97 P 907; Olds v. State, 44 Fla. 452, 33 S 296; Kelly v. State, 145 Ga. 210, 88 SE 822: Hamilton v. State, 143 Ga. 265, 84 SE 583: Powell v. State, 122 Ga. 571. 50 SE 369; Mitchell v. State, 110 Ga. 272, 34 SE 576; Petty v. State, 83 Miss. 260, 35 S 213; Owens v. State, 80 Miss. 499, 32 S 152; State v. Rosa, 72 N. J. L. 462. 62 A 695; State v. Chandler. 57 Or. 561, 112 P 1087; Com. v. House, 223 Pa. 487. 72 A 804 [rev 36 Pa. Super. 363]; Gentry V. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 567, 152 SW 635; Florence V. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 238. [d] Degree of impeachment.-As there are no degrees to the several methods of impeaching a witness, a requested charge speaking of the highest form of impeachment is properly refused. Forman v. State, 190 Ala. 22, 67 S 583. [e] Reputation.-An instruction on the credibility of a witness should refer to the reputation of the witness for truth and veracity, not to his character. Peo. v. Grosenhelder, 266 III. 324, 107 NE 607. [f] Explanation of contradictory statements.-A charge which in effect makes it the duty of the jury to believe the witness if he satisfactorily accounts for his former false statement is error, as they have a right to believe him notwithstanding he made prior false statements under oath; and on the other hand they are not compelled to believe him if he explains why he did so, particularly if he is a person of bad character. Reinhart v. State, 102 Ga. 690, 29 SE 443. 86. Mims v. State, 141 Ala. 93, 37 S 354; Webb v. State, 140 Ga. 779, 79 SE 1126; Walker v. State, 137 Ga. 398, 73 SE 368; Rouse v. State, 136 Ga. 356, 71 SE 667; McGirt v. State, 125 Ga. 269, 54 SE 171; Chapman v. State, 109 Ga. 157, 34 SE 369; Peo. v. Spencer, 171 Ill. A. 237; Hunter v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 439, 129 SW 125. 87. Evans v. State, 95 Ga. 468, 22 SE 298. [a] Instruction not necessary.The mode of impeachment of witnesses concerns the testimony offered for that purpose, and, where impeaching testimony is material and admitted in compliance with rules of law, the court need not, at least in the absence of a proper request, when charging upon the effect of such testimony, repeat the rule that previous contradictory statements of a witness to impeach him must relate to a material matter, and that the witness' attention must have been called to the time and place of making them. Taylor v. State, 135 Ga. 622, 70 SE 237. 88. Brown v. U. S., 164 U. S. 221, 17 SCt 33, 41 L. ed. 410. 89. Rouse v. State, 136 Ga. 356, 71 SE 667; Pike v. State, 121 Ga. 604, 49 SE 680; Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 9, 29 SE 309, 65 AmSR 277: Dawson v. | State, 2 Ga. A. 637, 58 SE 1065; State v. Chandler, 57 Or. 561, 112 P 1087. W 90. Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 S 761. But see Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4, 53 S 296, 390 (holding that, it being a question of fact, on all the evidence, whether or not the witness was impeached, the requested charge that if the jury do not, on consideration of all the evidence, believe witness W made the statement which witness R testified W did make to him, W is not impeached, is misleading). 91. Dawson v. State, 2 Ga. A. 637. 58 SE 1065. 92. Arnold v. State, 131 Ga. 491, 62 SE 806; Long v. State, 127 Ga. 330. 56 SE 444; Fite v. State, 16 Ga. A. 22. S4 SE 485; Dawson v. State, 2 Ga. A. 637, 58 SE 1065; Harris v. State, 1 Ga. A. 136, 57 SE 937. 93. Ala.-Reynolds v. State, 72 S 20; Bennett v. State, 160 Ala. 25, S 296; Wilkerson v. State, 140 Ala. 165, 37 S 265. Ga.-Rouse v. State, 136 Ga. 356. 71 SE 667; Ector V. State. 126 Ga. 543, 48 SE 315; Grant v. State, 118 Ga. 804. 45 SE 603: Hu v. State, 104 Ga. 521, 30 SE 808; Wliams v. State, 69 Ga. 11: Dawson v State, 2 Ga. A. 637, 58 SE 1065. Ind.-McDermott v. State, 89 Ind 2 a material fact;1 impeached; and that a witness, sought to be im- 94. Seawright v. State, 160 Ala. 33, 49 S 325; Wynne v. State, 155 Ala. 99, 46 S 459; Churchwell v. State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 S 72; Davis v. State, 2 Ala. A. 200, 56 S 844; State v. Chandler, 57 Or. 561, 112 P 1087; Niezorawski v. State, 131 Wis. 166, 111 NW 250. [a] Instruction held erroneous.— Hamilton v. State, 147 Ala. 110, 41 S 940; Niezorawski v. State, 131 Wis. 166, 111 NW 250. 95. Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79. 41 S 761; Kelly v. State, 118 Ga. 329, 45 SE 413; Hart v. State, 93 Ga. 160, 20 SE 39; Gordon v. State, 10 Ga. A. 35, 72 SE 544. 8 [b] Languages of statute.—(1) An instruction in the language of the statute, "that a witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others," is not erroneous because it omits the word "willfully" before "false" and the words "as to a material matter" after "testimony." State v. Connors, 37 Mont. 15, 94 P 199 (construing Code Civ. Proc. § 3390 subd 3). (2) The word "false," as used in a statute providing that a witness false in one part of his tes[a] Instruction not warranted.-timony is to be distrusted in another, (1) Where the credibility of a wit- is not the equivalent of "mistaken;" ness is attacked, evidence to support and hence an instruction in the lanit that witnesses have not heard any- guage of the statute is not erroneous thing against him, but have only for a refusal to add "willfully" beknown him for a month, does not au- fore "false." thorize an instruction that such witness may be sustained by proof of general good character. Joyner v. State, 12 Ga. A. 217, 77 SE 9. (2) Where accused sought to impeach witnesses for the state, and the judge, in instructing on impeachment, recited Pen. Code § 1026, and there was no evidence of the good character of any of the witnesses, the last clause of that section, to the effect that a witness when impeached may be sustained by proof of general good character, was improperly given. Kelly v. State, 118 Ga. 329, 45 SE 413. 96. Knight v. State, 160 Ala. 58, 49 S 764: Brown v. State, 142 Ala. 287, 38 S 268 [overr Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19, 21 S 993; Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44, 17 S 321]; Jackson v. State, 136 Ala. 22, 34 S 188; Hall v. State, 130 Ala. 45, 30 S 422; Cobb v. State, 115 Ala. 18, 22 S 506; Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 21 S 214. 97. Cross references: As to defendant see infra § 2447. 98. State v. McDevitt, 69 Iowa 549, 29 NW 459; State v. Allen, 111 La. 154, 35 S 495; State v. Banks, 40 La. Ann. 736, 5 S 18; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568. 99. Ala.-Reynolds v. State, 72 S 20. V. State, 111 Ga. Ga.-Plummer 839. 36 SE 233. Miss.-Owens v. State, 80 Miss. 499, 32 S 152. Mo.-State v. Dwire, 25 Mo. 553. Nebr-Barber v. State, 75 Nebr. 543, 106 NW 423. 1. See Witnesses [40 Cyc 2588]. 2. Peo. v. Righetti, 66 Cal. 184, 4 P 1063. 185; State v. Connors. 37 Mont. 15, 94 P 199; State v. Penna, 35 Mont. 535, 90 P 787; State v. Meyers, 59 Or. 531, 117 P 818; State v. Kyle, [16 C. J.-65] State v. Meyers, 59 Or. 537, 117 P 818 (construing Lord L. § 868 subd 3). 3. Ala.-Seawright v. State, 160 Ala. 33, 49 S 325; Hamilton v. State, 147 Ala. 110, 41 S 940; Prater v. State, 107 Ala. 26, 18 S 238; Childs v. State, 76 Ala. 93; Grimes v. State, 63 Ala. 166; Ellis v. State, (A.) 72 S 578; Robinson v. State, 4 Ala. A. 1, 58 S 121. Cal.-Peo. v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151. Henderson, Minn.-State V. 72 Miss. State v. Wofford, 56 S 162; Howell v. State, 98 Miss. 439. 53 S 954; White v. State, 52 Miss. 216. Mo.-State v. Lett, 85 Mo. 52; State v. Brown, 64 Mo. 367; State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159. 5 481, 38 S 725; White v. State, 52 Miss. 6. McKnight v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 235, 122 P 1118; Havill v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 22, 121 P 794; Sims v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 7, 120 P 1032; Henry v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 430, 119 P 278; Gibbons v. Terr. 5 Okl. Cr. 212, 115 P 129. 7. Jackson v. State, 94 Ark. 169, 126 SW 843; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 56 SW 881; State v. Hicks, 92 Mo. 431, 4 SW 742. 8. Ala.-Reynolds v. State, 72 S 20; Jackson v. State, 136 Ala. 22, 34 S 188; Burton v. State, 115 Ala. 1, 22 S 585; Harrison v. State, 12 Ala. 284. 68 S 532. Ark.-Burgess v. State, 108 Ark. 508, 158 SW 774; Jackson v. State, 94 Ark. 169, 126 SW 843. Cal.-Peo. v. MacDonald, 167 Cal. 545, 140 P 256; Peo. v. Grill, 151 Cal. 592, 91 P 515; Peo. v. Wilder, 134 Cal. 182, 66 P 228; Peo. v. Arlington, 131 Cal. 231, 63 P 347; Peo. v. Winters, 125 Cal. 325, 57 P 1067; Peo. v. Demousset, 71 Cal. 611, 12 P 788; Peo. v. Strong, 30. Cal. 151; Peo. v. Brown, 28 Cal. A. 261, 152 P_58. Ida. State v. Bogris, 26 Ida. 587, 144 P 789; State v. Waln, 80 P 221. Ill.-Peo. v. Scarbak, 245 Ill. 435, 92 NE 286; Aldrich v. Peo., 224 Ill. 622, 79 NE 964, 115 AmSR 166, 7 LRANS 1149, 8 AnnCas 284. Iowa.-State v. Shelledy, 8 Iowa 477. Ky.-Crawford v. Com., 7 Ky. Op. 434. Mich.-Peo. v. Breen, 192 Mich. 39, 158 NW 142. Miss. Jeffries v. State, 77 Miss. 757, 28 S 948. Mo.-State v. Hutchison, 186 SW 1000; State v. Lamont, 180 SW 861; Nev.-State v. Burns, 27 Nev. 289, State v. Shelton, 233 Mo. 118, 122 SW 74 P 983. N. D.-State v. Winney, 21 N. D. 72, 128 NW 680; State v. Johnson, 14 N. D. 288, 103 NW 565. 732; State v. Swisher, 186 Mo. 1, 84 SW 911; State v. Dent, 170 Mo. 398, 70 SW 881; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 56 SW 881; State v. Martin, 124 [a] Willfully and intentionally. Mo. 514, 28 SW 12; State v. Duncan, A charge on the corroboration of witnesses that if any witness has "wilfully testified falsely," is sufficient, without stating that such testimony must be "wilfully and intentionally" false; the words "wilfully" and "intentionally" being synonymous in such case. State v. Winney, 21 N. D. 72. 128 NW 680. 116 Mo. 288, 22 SW 699; State V. Mounce, 106 Mo. 226, 17 SW 226; State v. Hickam, 95 Mo. 332, 8 SW 252, 6 AmSR 54; State v. Hicks, 92 Mo. 431, 4 SW 742; State v. Gee, 85 Mo. 647; State v. Vansant. 80 Mo. 67; State v. Thomas, 78 Mo. 327; State v. Stout, 31 Mo. 406; State v. Meagher, 49 Mo. A. 571. Mont-State v. Lee, 34 Mont. 584, 87 P 977. Nebr.-Mauder v. State, 97 Nebr. 380, 149 NW 800; Shumway v. State, 82 Nebr. 152, 117 NW 407: Barber v. State, 75 Nebr. 543, 106 NW 423; Titterington v. State, 75 Nebr. 153, 106 NW 421. N. Y.-Moett v. Peo.. 85 N. Y. 373 [aff 23 Hun 60] (stating the rule as applied to civil cases). N. C.-State v. Williams, 47 N. C. 257. true, and except in so far as it is corroborated by other credible evidence.10 But as a general rule it is erroneous to charge that it is the duty of the jury to disregard all the testimony of a witness if any material part thereof is willfully false,11 although according to some authorities it is not error for the court to charge that they should give no weight to such testimony unless corroborated.12 Corroboration. In some jurisdictions it has been held proper to instruct that the jury may disregard the testimony of a witness who has knowingly sworn falsely to a material matter, unless his testimony is corroborated;13 and according to some authorities, the omission of the clause as to corroboration renders the instruction erroneous.14 But according to other authorities, such a clause is not necessary, 15 and, under some statutes, it is erroneous to include the clause relating to corroboraN. D.-State v. Reilly, 25 N. D. 339, 141 NW 720; State v. Winney, 21 N. D. 72, 128 NW 680. Or.-State v. Goff, 71 Or. 352, 142 P 564 Utah.-State v. Hillstrom, 46 Utah 341, 150 P 935. W. Va.-State v. Wilson, 74 W. Va. 772, 83 SE 44; State v. Clark, 64 W. Va. 625, 63 SE 402; State v. Perry, 41 W. Va. 641, 24 SE 634; State V. Thompson, 21 W. Va. 741. Wis.-Beauregard V. State, 146 Wis. 280, 131 NW 347. But compare Spick v. State, 140 Wis. 104, 121 NW 664 (holding that a jury should not be instructed that, if they believe that the testimony of any witness is false, they may reject it, as if they had a discretion whether to reject or not, and were not bound to reject such testimony). [a] Alternative forms.—(1) An instruction invoking the maxim, Falsus in unum falsus in omnibus, must state in the alternative that the jury may disregard the witness' testimony not known to be false, or may give it such effect as they think it is entitled to. State v. Wilson, 74 W. Va. 772, 83 SE 44. (2) But an instruction directing the jury, that if they believe any witness has willfully sworn falsely to any material matter, or that the testimony of such witness is unreasonable, they may disregard the whole testimony of such witness, is erroneous because of the use of the disjunctive. Jeffries V. State, 77 Miss. 757, 28 S 948. [b] Language of statute.-A charge that a witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others, being in accordance with the statute, is proper. Peo. v. MacDonald, 167 Cal. 545, 140 P 256; Peo. v. Dobbins, 138 Cal. 694, 72 P 339. Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2342. 9. Burgess v. State, 108 Ark. 508, 158 SW 774; Taylor v. State, 82 Ark. 540, 102 SW 367. V. Terr., 8 Ga.-Garland v. State, 124 Ga. 832, 53 SE 314; Dawson v. State, 2 Ga. A. 637, 58 SE 1065. 10. Ariz.-Trimble Ariz. 273, 71 P 932. Ida. State v. Waln, 80 P 221. Mont-State v. Lee, 34 Mont. 584, 87 P 977. Nebr.-Barber v. State, 75 Nebr. 543, 106 NW 423. N. D.-State v. Reilly. 25 N. D. 339, 141 NW 720; State v. Winney, 21 N. D. 72, 128 NW 680. Or.-State v. Goff, 71 Or. 352, 142 P 564. Utah.-State v. Hillstrom, 46 Utah 341, 150 P 935 W. Va.-State v. Clark, 64 W. Va. 625, 63 SE 402. [a] Legally corroborated. In instructing as to the credibility of witnesses who have sworn falsely, the tion.16 An instruction, Referring to penalty for perjury. that it has been provided by statute that a witness who willfully and corruptly, and with intent to take away the life of a person, bears false testimony against him, and thereby causes such person's life to be taken, shall suffer death, is proper.17 11. Ala.-Saulsberry v. State, 178 Ala. 16, 59 S 476; Edmondson v. State, 4, Ala. 196, 59 S 229; Mills v. State, 1 Ala. A. 76, 55 S 331. 19 [§ 2443] 17. Credibility of Testimony or Statement of Accused-a. Necessity for Instructions.18 Although it has been held error to single out defendant personally and to charge upon the credibility and weight of his testimony, as a general rule, where accused testifies in his own behalf, the court should instruct the jury that he is a competent witness for himself under the statute and as to the credibility and weight to be given his testimony,20 unless it is immaterial,21 or unless it is simulated and at variance with the physical facts court should instruct that testimony | Cr.) 154 P 1008; Brown v. State. 9 is to be rejected entirely, unless le- Okl. Cr. 382, 132 P 359; Clark v. State, gally corroborated, instead of in- 4 Okl. Cr. 368, 111 P 659; Culpepper v. structing that such testimony is to be State, 4 Okl. Cr. 103, 111 P 679, 140 rejected unless corroborated. Gar- AmSR 668, 31 LRANS 1166; Crow v. lani v. State, 124 Ga. 832, 53 SE 314. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 428, 106 P 556; Hughes v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 387, 106 P 546; Bridges v. U. S., 3 Okl. Cr. 64, 104 P 370; Reed v. U. S., 2 Okl. Cr. 652, 103 P 371; Price v. U. S., 2 Okl. Cr. 449, 101 P 1036, 139 AmSR 930; Mitchell v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 442, 101 P 1100; Banks v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 339, 101 P 610; Fletcher v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 300, 101 P 599, 23 LRANS 581; Green v. U. S., 2 Okl. Cr. 55, 101 P 112. But compare Helms v. U. S., 2 Ind. T. 595, 52 SW 60 (holding that it is not reversible error for the trial judge, in a prosecution for murder. to instruct the jury particularly as to the weight to be given to the testimony of a defendant who has testified in his own behalf; but that it is the better practice to lay down the rule in a general way as applicable to all the witnesses); State v. De Lea, 36 Mont. 531, 93 P 814 (holding that an instruction in the words of Pen. Code § 2442, that a defendant in a criminal action or proceeding cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, but may be sworn and may testify in his own behalf, and that the jury, in judging his credibility and the weight to be given to his testimony, may take into consideration the fact that he is the defendant, and the nature and enormity of the crime of which he is accused, is proper, as the statute creates an exception to the general rule that the court ought not to single out a particular witness and direct the attention of the jury to his testimony). Cal.-Peo. v. Oldham, 111 Cal. 648, Kan.-State v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80. N. Y.-Dunn v. Peo., 29 N. Y. 523, Invasion of province of jury see supra § 2342. 12. Plummer v. State, 111 Ga. 839, 36 SE 233; Pierce v. State, 53 Ga. 365; Ivey v. State, 23 Ga. 576; Harrell v. State, 9 Ga. A. 624, 71 SE 1030; State v. McCartey, 17 Minn. 76. 13. Rider V. Peo.. 110 Ill. 11; Faulkner v. Terr., 6 N. M. 464, 30 P 905. 14. Peak V. Peo., 76 Ill. 289; 15. Minich v. Peo.. 8 Colo. 440, 9 16. State v. Penna, 35 Mont. 535, 17. State v. Fournier, 68 Vt. 262, 35 A 178. 18. Invasion of province of jury see supra §§ 2343-2346. 19. Peo. v. Barkas, 255 Ill. 516, 99 NE 698; Peo. v. Goodrich, 251 Ill. 558, 96 NE 542; Peo. v. Johns, 190 Ill. A. 367; Peo. v. Frioni, 186 Ill. A. 215; State v. Gifford, (Mo.) 186 SW 1058; Shumway v. State, 82 Nebr. 152, 117 NW 407; Savary v. State, 62 Nebr. 166, 87 NW 34; Doud v. State, (Okl. [a] An instruction of general ap plication regarding the credibility of witnesses, otherwise proper and correct, is not open to objection because defendant who testified in his own behalf was the only witness having a direct legal interest in the result of the trial. Savary v. State, 62 Nebr. 166, 87 NW 34. Undue prominence of particular matters generally see infra §§ 2479. 2480. 20. Colo. Almond v. Peo., 55 Colo. 425, 135 P 783. Il-Peo. v. Archibald, 258 Ill. 383, 101 NE 582. La.-State v. Poree, 136 La. 939, 68 S 83. Mo.-State v. Dilts, 191 Mo. 665, 90 SW 782; State v. Fredericks, 136 Mo. 51, 37 SW 832; State v. Brandenburg. 118 Mo. 181, 23 SW 1080, 40 AmSR 362; State v. Talmage, 107 Mo. 543, 17 SW 990; State v. Brown, 104 Mo. 365, 16 SW 406. N. D.-State v. Tough, 12 N. D. 425, 96 NW 1025. 21. State v. Brandenburg, 118 Mo. 181, 23 SW 1080, 40 AmSR 362; and the testimony of all the witnesses.22 But on the other hand, it has been held that it is not necessary, even under a statute requiring the court to instruct on all questions of law, to give a special charge on the credibility of accused as a witness,23 particularly where the subject is covered by other instructions.2 24 It also has been held error to charge upon the credibility of defendant where he is the only witness testifying to material facts tending to establish his defense.25 [§ 2444] b. Sufficiency of Instructions in General. An instruction as to the weight and credibility of defendant's testimony or statement should clearly and fully state and apply the rules governing Holmes v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 541, 119 22. State v. Pollard, 139 Mo. 220, 40 SW 949 State v. Nelson, 118 Mo. 124, 23 SW 1088. 23. Peo. v. Hitchcock, 104 Cal. 482, 38 P 198; Peo. v. Rodundo, 44 Cal. 538; State v. Westlake, 159 Mo. 669, 61 SW 243. 24. Ark. Stewart v. State, 88 Ark. 602, 115 SW 374. Cal.-Peo. v. Holmes, 126 Cal. 462, 58 P 917. D. C.-Funk v. U. S., 16 App. 478. Fla.-Lang v. State, 42 Fla. 595, 28 S 856. ' Mo.-State v. Carryer, 180 SW 850; State v. Green, 229 Mo. 642, 129 SW 700; State v. Long, 187 Mo. A. 223, 173 SW 722; State v. Davidson, 172 Mo. A. 356, 157 SW 890. Refusal of requested instructions on points already covered generally see infra § 2506. 25. Manning v. State, 5 Okl. Cr. 532, 115 P 612. 26. Douglas v. Terr., 1 Okl. Cr. 583, 98 P 1023; Phelan v. State, 114 Tenn. 483, 88 SW 1040; Cox v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 545, 126 SW 886. [a] Instructions held proper or erroneously refused. Ridgell v. State, 110 Ark. 606, 162 SW 773; Miller v. Peo., 229 Ill. 376, 82 NE 391; Maguire v. Peo., 219 Ill. 16, 76 NE 67; Waller v. Peo., 209 Ill. 284, 70 NE 681; Higgins v. Peo., 98 Ill. 519; McIntosh v. State, 151 Ind. 251, 51 NE 354; State v. Olds, 106 Iowa 110, 76 NW 644; State v. Chingren, 105 Iowa 169, 74 NW 946; Peo. v. Burkhart, 165 Mich. 240, 130 NW 597; Peo. v. Dumas, 161 Mich. 45, 125 NW 766; Peo. V. Blanchard, 136 Mich. 146, 98 NW 983; Peo. v. Willett, 105 Mich. 110, 62 NW 1115; Peo. v. Jones, 24 Mich. 215; State v. Wilson, 223 Mo. 173, 122 SW 671; State v. Brown, 216 Mo. 351, 115 SW 967; State v. Taylor, 134 Mo. 109, 35 SW 92; State v. De Lea, 36 Mont. 531, 93 P 814; State v. Farnham, 35 Mont. 375, 89 P 728; State v. Dotson, 26 Mont. 305, 67 P 938; Johnson v. State, 88 Nebr. 565, 130 NW 282, AnnCas1912B 965; State v. Johnny, 29 Nev. 203, 87 P 3; State v. Fogleman, 164 N. C. 458, 79 SE 879; State v. Rayner, 50 Or. 224, 91 P 301. [b] Instructions held erroneous. Peo. v. MacDonald, 167 Cal. 545, 140 P 256; Lynch v. Peo., 33 Colo. 128, 79 P 1015; Lang v. State, 42 Fla. 595, 28 $856; Peo. v. Barkas, 255 Ill. 516, 99 NE 698; Peo. v. White, (Mich.) 160 NW 452; Peo. v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1, 79 NW 944; State v. Miller, 162 Mo. 253, 62 SW 692, 85 AmSR 498; Donner v. State, 72 Nebr. 263, 100 NW 305, 117 AmSR 789; State v. Graham, 133 N. C. 645, 45 SE 514; State v. Fuller, 52 Or. 42, 96 P 456; State v. Bartlett, 50 Or. 440, 93 P 243, 126 AmSR 751, 19 LRANS 802; Scott v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 57, 153 SW 871; Edmonson v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 113, 150 SW 917; Knight v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 243. 116 SW 58; State v. Warner, 69 Vt. 30, 37 A 246. [c] Prior conviction.-While it is the duty of the court to instruct that the fact that defendant has been convicted of a penitentiary offense merely affects his credibility, it is not er 27 the same;26 and such instruction must not be argu- N. M.-Terr. v. Livingston, 13 N. M. 318, 84 P 1021. ror to fail so to instruct where de- | 60 SW 67. [d] Hypothesis of instruction.- [e] Instruction held undesirable. -Where the court charged that defendant had offered himself as a witness in his own behalf, as he was entitled to do, and that the jury should consider his testimony the same as that of any other witness, but that, in determining the credit to be given thereto, they should consider his very great interest in the result and the effect of a verdict on him, and should determine how far, if at all, such interest might color his testimony, that, if his statements carried with them belief in their truth, the jury should receive and act on them, and, if not, they might reject them, it was held that, while such charge was not error, the instruction was undesirable, and should not be given. Robertson v. Terr., 13 Ariz. 10, 108 P 217, 218 (where the court recommended the disuse of this instruction, although it had been approved in Prior v. Terr., 11 Ariz. 169, 89 P 412, and in Halderman v. Terr., 7 Ariz. 120, 60 P 876). 27. Bodine v. State, 129 Ala. 106, 29 S 926; Tittle v. State, (Ala. A.) 73 S 142; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260, 170 SW 1016. [a] Illustration.-An instruction that accused is authorized, under the statute, to testify in his own behalf, and that the jury have the right to give full credit to his statement, is argumentative. Greer v. State, 156 Ala. 15, 47 S 300; Mann v. State, 134 Ala. 1, 32 S 704; Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 S 40; Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144, 15 S 278; Simmons v. State, 124 Ark. 566, 187 SW 646. Argumentative instructions generally see infra § 2476. 28. Thomas v. State, 156 Ala. 166, 47 S 257; Greer v. State, 156 Ala. 15, 47 S 300; Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 S 40; Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144, 15 S 278: Sandford v. State, 2 Ala. A. 81, 57 S 134; McDonald v. State, (Miss.) 28 S 750; State v. Lewis, 248 Mo. 498, 154 SW 716; State v. Dixon, 149 N. C. 460, 62 SE 615. Misleading instructions generally see infra § 2477. 29. Ala.-Harrison Ala. 20, 40 S 568. v. State, 144 30. U. S. Alexis v. U. S., 129 Fed. 60, 63 CCA 502. Ala.-Harrison v. State, 144 Ala. 20, 40 S 568. Ark.-Blair v. State, 69 Ark. 558, 64 SW 948. Ga.-Woods v. State, 10 Ga. A. 476, 73 SE 608. Ill-Waller v. Peo., 209 Ill. 284, 70 NE 681; Henry v. Peo., 198 Ill. 162, 65 NE 120. Ind. McIntosh v. State, 151 Ind. 251, 51 NE 354. N. M.-Terr. v. Livingston, 13 N. M. 318, 84 P 1021. 31. U. S.-Hickory v. U. S., 160 U. S. 408, 16 SCt 327, 40 L. ed. 474, Ala. Harrison v. State, 144 Ala. 20, 40 S 568; Dennis v. State, 118 Ala. 72, 23 S 1002. Ark.-Ridgel v. State, 110 Ark. 606, 162 SW 773; Hudson v. State, 77 Ark. 334, 91 SW 299; Blair v. State, 69 Ark. 558, 64 SW 948; Jones v. State, 61 Ark. 88, 32 SW 81; Vaughan v. State, 58 Ark. 353, 24 SW 885. Cal.-Peo. v. Tibbs, 143 Cal. 100, 76 P 904. v. State, 64 Fla. Fla.-Robertson 437, 60 S 118. Ill.-Peo. v. Searbak, 245 Ill. 435, 92 NE 286; Waller v. Peo., 209 III. 284, 70 NE 681; Dunn v. Peo., 109 Ill. 635. Ind.-McIntosh v. State, 151 Ind. 251, 51 NE 354; McClure v. State, 77 Ind. 287. Iowa.-State v. Walker, 133 Iowa 489, 110 NW 925. Pa.-Com. v. Breyessee, 160 Pa. 451, 28 A 824, 40 AmSR 729. Wis.-Emery v. State, 101 Wis. 627, 78 NW 145. [a] "During the trial."-Where the evidence of defendant's guilt is close, it is reversible error to instruct that the jury may take into consideration the demeanor and conduct of defendant "during the trial," in passing upon the credit which should be given defendant's testimony. Peo. v. McGinnis, 234 Ill. 68, 84 NE 687, 123 AmSR 73. con [b] Contrasting testimony and circumstances.-An instruction trasting the testimony of accused with the circumstances of the case, in such a way as to convey to the jury the idea that the testimony of accused was to be considered by them as having little or no weight, is erroneous. Hickory v. U. S., 160 U. S. 408. 16 SCt 327, 40 L. ed. 474. 32. Peo. v. Strauch, 247 Ill. 220, 93 NE 126; Peo. v. Scarbak, 245 Ill. Ark. Blair v. State, 69 Ark. 558, 435, 92 NE 286; Peo. v. Zajicek. 233 64 SW 948. Ill.-Peo. v. Spira, 264 III. 243, 106 NE 241; Peo. v. Strauch, 247 Ill. 220, 93 NE 126. Ind.-McIntosh v. State, 151 Ind. 251, 51 NE 354. Kan.-State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371, Miss. McVay v. State, 26 S 947. Ill. 198, 84 NE 249; McElroy v. Peo., 202 111. 473, 66 NE 1058. [a] Refusal held error.-Where the court instructs that the existence of evidence contradicting accused's testimony is to be considered in determining his credibility, it is error to refuse to instruct that the existence of corroborating evidence should also be considered. McElroy v. Peo., 202 Ill. 473, 66 NE 1058. 33. Ark.-Hudson v. State, 77 Ark. 334, 91 SW 299; Jones v. State, 61 Ark. 88, 33 SW 81; Howard v. State, |