The indictment in this case charged that "Ervin Tidwell with intent to injure or defraud, did alter, forge, or counterfeit a certain check," etc. Defendant was convicted "as charged," and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The court refused to give to the jury this charge, requested in writing by the defendant:
The refusal of the following charge has been held to be reversible error:
The present charge fairly and substantially states the applicable principles of law set out in the charge reviewed by Judge Carr in the Sanford case, supra. The words "it is your duty" are equivalent to the word "should," since "should" as used in instructions to the jury conveys the sense of duty or obligation. State v. Connor, 74 Kan. 898, 87 P. 703; Kippenbrock v. Wabash R. Co., 270 Mo. 479, 194 S.W. 50; Scarborough v. Walton, 36 Ga.App. 428, 136 S.E. 830.
The requested charge was not covered by the court's charge. No charge requested in writing by defendant was given. For the error in refusing the requested charge above set out, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
In view of this holding a discussion of other questions presented is not necessary.
Reversed and remanded.