"Where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was guilty as charged, this court will not interfere with verdict even if there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts." Sadler v. State, 84 Okla. Cr. 97, 179 P.2d 479; Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755. The trial court did not err as hereinbefore complained of. The judgment and sentence is affirmed.

These facts clearly presented a question for the determination of the jury. Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755; Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437. The defendant further complains of said conviction for the reason that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial in that the County Attorney asked improper and prejudicial questions of Mr. Hicks, who testified as to the defendant's good character and reputation.

The record, herein, in our opinion, is sufficient to support a conviction on the charge of murder, because it appears from the evidence that the defendant left Slocum's Tavern, procured his pistol, and came back with premeditated design to kill the decedent, Tommy Donnell. The jury convicted the defendant of first degree manslaughter and fixed his punishment at ten years in the penitentiary. It is true there is a conflict between the state's and the defendant's theory of the crime, but where the evidence is conflicting, the sufficiency thereof presents a question for the jury, and the Criminal Court of Appeals is limited in its consideration to ascertainment of whether there is a reasonable basis in the evidence on which the jury could conclude that the accused was guilty as charged. Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437; Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755. The record clearly supports this conclusion in the case at bar. We find no fundamental error in the information, in the trial proceedings, in the verdict of the jury, or the judgment as rendered by the trial court.

In any event, its conflicting character presented a question of fact for the jury. Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755; Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437. We are further of the opinion that the record as a whole does not support the defendant's contention that he was not afforded a fair and impartial trial as by law provided.

It has been repeatedly held that the Criminal Court of Appeals will not interfere with the verdict even if there is a sharp conflict and different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Sadler v. State, 84 Okla. Cr. 97, 179 P.2d 479; Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755; Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437. It was therefore not error for the trial court to overrule the defendant's demurrer to the evidence. The defendant complains that the trial court admitted evidence that was not properly identified.

The defendant admitted on cross-examination that he had had relations with numerous other women. The evidence was ample from which the jury might well conclude the defendant was guilty of the crime of which he stood charged. It has been repeatedly held until it is now axiomatic that the findings of fact are the exclusive province of the jury and where there is sufficient evidence reasonably tending to support the same, the jury's finding will not be reversed, on appeal. Sadler v. State, 84 Okla. Cr. 97, 179 P.2d 479; Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437; Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755. The defendant first complains that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the information.

Where the evidence is conflicting, sufficiency thereof is entirely a question for the jury. Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755; Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437; Gardner v. State, Okla. Cr. 278 P.2d 249. Moreover, in considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the function of the Criminal Court of Appeals is limited to ascertaining whether there is a basis in the evidence by which a jury could conclude that the accused is guilty as charged. Dodson v. State, supra. This evidence meets these requirements.

He had been vested with the custody of it that afternoon by Mr. Rutledge Beasley, of the Richardson Buick Company; it was a Plymouth automobile and was repossessed by the Company, whose identification was on the keys found by the officers. This record presents only a question of fact for the jury, and the jury was clearly justified in finding the defendant guilty, Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755, since conflicting evidence presents a question of fact for the sole determination of the jury. Nothing herein indicates that the defendant was laboring under a mental condition at the time the crime was committed, but attached to the record is a letter written by Dr. Charles W. Robinson, M.D., Chief Medical Officer for the Veterans' Administration, Regional Office, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that this defendant, a World War II veteran, had been hospitalized during his war service, with a diagnosis of Psychopath without Psychosis, and that he had been hospitalized at another time as a Psychopath without Psychosis and alcoholism.

But this question, as were those of reckless driving, and running the red traffic light, was a question for the sole determination of the jury. Stuart v. State, Okla. Cr. 280 P.2d 755; Dodson v. State, Okla. Cr. 284 P.2d 437. We are of the opinion that the evidence substantially supports the charges in the information.