CRIMINAL LAW--Instruction--Reasonable Doubt. An instruction in the following language: "The court instructs the jury that if, after hearing all the evidence introduced, you entertain a reasonable doubt as to the guilt 'or innocence' of the defendants, you must give defendants the benefit of the doubt and acquit them"--is error.

"Two errors occurred in the trial of the cause that we think, under the former holdings of this court, should and will reverse the same. The first one is the denial of the court to give to the jury instructions Nos. 5 and 6 requested by defendant. These instructions go to the fact that there might have been an accident or a misunderstanding that caused the hotel's property to be packed in that of the moving defendant. The other one is because the court told the jury, in instruction No. 6, that if they had a reasonable doubt as to the guilt 'or innocence' of the defendant they must acquit. This instruction is contrary to the law as laid down by this court in a number of cases, the last being Findley v. State, 13 Okla. Crim. 128[162 P. 680]. The burden must not be put upon the defendant. Recurring to the first exception herein, which we allow, we say that to have gotten said property mixed up by accident was the only theory within reach of the defendant, and she should have had the benefit of it. See Payton v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. 316[111 P. 666]; McIntosh v. State, 8 Okla. Crim. 469[128 P. 735]," etc.