*1 them- between Whether working- agreement repre- of an Mrs. out Holshouser was by under sented lease whereby selves of the the sale counsel of is of little her choice interests the concern. Judgment execution would be had was rendered in her thereby. The favor plaintiff wiped any out plaintiff might claim the defendant, have Larimer, setting her in or other defendants validity reason alleged fense thereto alleged the fraud collusion. prop- sale, purchase good faith In view of our conclusion cases cited: erty, possession in owner was the relied Holshouser, in ef- Mrs. existed any agreements and denied that fect, sustain sought. of the relief denial purport between the The defendants. Judgment affirmed. question of judgment settle plain- fraud and between collusion as WELCH, J.,C. DAVISON, HAL- tiff and the defendants. LEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, JACK- CARLILE, SON and JJ., concur. be issue There was no adverse appear tween the defendants. It does manner, purports any judgment, in any Cer
to settle between them. issue is
tainly issues judgment Tilley Materials
ineffective. Allied v.
Corp., 208 Okl.
terest. plaintiff’s germane defendants action, owner to the extent of the
original question,
ship leasehold estate controversy between them
is a distinct counterclaim maintainable
is not no defense as constitutes
cross-bill. Cullinan, plaintiff.
against the Johnson Smith, 246, 221 P. 94 Okl. James 904. This 192 Okl. nothing judg inherent in
true there effects con manner
ment Holshouser, Mc
troversy between Mrs. Larimer. The effect of the
Millan plaintiff that as between
judgment Larimer, purchaser who was faith for value and good rs owner of
lease.
Counsel for argues that: “The clearly conclusively reflects pursuit shows that arrest *3 defendant officers Peck and Lawson * * * was for the sole of check- ing defendant’s vehicle intoxicating for liquors, and that such arrest was a subter- fuge, and that charge speeding a subterfuge used officers, said in at- tempting to legalize pursuit, arrest, and search of the defendant and his vehi- cle.” course,
Of
even if the officers had
probable cause to believe that defendant’s
automobile
whiskey, still,
was loaded with
in a
case,
misdemeanor
a search
warrant cannot
legally justified.
Wal
Tulsa,
Page,
plaintiff
A.
for
in
Elmore
198;
281,
State,
294 P.
49 Okl.Cr.
lace v.
error.
Brinegar
State,
299,
v.
97 Okl.Cr.
262 P.2d
Q. Williamson,
Gen.,
Atty.
Mac
Lewis A.
464;
Simpson,
418,
State v.
91 Okl.Cr.
Wallace,
Atty.
in
Gen.,
Asst.
for defendant
639;
219 P.2d
State,
Edwards v.
83 Okl.
error.
340,
Cr.
For reversal but one With above cases guid sented, still, ance, commencing whether trial the examination overruling committed error in the evidence defendant’s mo suppress suppress evidence on the motion asserted tion to there are some other well developed ground principles kept of an unlawful search and seizure. to be in mind: ant, him that was under arrest files a mo and told first, a defendant where driving. Wit- speeding him to and reckless rests on burden suppress, the tion to Lawson, partner, allegations ness proof said offer evidence State, out, letting after drove on in effort (Edwards v. the motion contained Chrysler admitted 1021; car. Witness O’Dell v. Okl.Cr., 319 P.2d pistol that he four Wilson shot his into air second, and, stop, 585); get in an times effort to Okl.Cr., auto from an or his denied that he shot at defendant seizure whether search analysis, is, in its final car. he arrested is reasonable Witness said that when mobile *4 question, back judicial packages defendant he observed in the as a be determined to car; packages which under seat of his some of the the circumstances that view of all so, will and he smelled Such court been broken in the chase made. it is question liquor1 packages a as recognized trial court and not reverse liquor proceeded evi-. search packages. a conflict of He to of fact where there is competent sixty dence, approximately cases and the car and found there is finding support whiskey. reasonably tending subsequently to of took defend- He Okl.Cr., State, justice jail charges Wood v. ant to and filed in the the trial court. of Okl.Cr., State, 628; peace Franklin v. 316 defendant 204; State, 92 Okl.Cr. day time, Kirk v. speeding 281 P.2d in the and defendant n plead Okl. 360, paid 84 guilty Scott v. a fine. charge to such and 171, 180 repre- 196. was agreed Cr. that defendant was P.2d. justice of the sented counsel to first witness called The peace charge court. The within was then Peck, deputy suppress Art was motion to county filed in the court. County, said that he who1 sheriff of Ottawa night December prior defendant of time saw the denied that of Witness stat- 14, parked arrested him. officer he had 1956 and the arrest defendant of Lawson, partner, Bill highways he and his 60 and ed that at the intersection of and stop sign from west up to the denied that officer Lawson made such drove junction highway 60 at the a statement to the defendant. Witness de- awaiting any particular He said stopped, looking traffic clear. that he nied Chrysler light-colored car approached highway a that he noticed car when defendant complete stop come proceeding looking light- west for the or that he Chrysler highway colored and defendant’s opposite side car on the car. passed them crossed over that that it then He denied he had conversation with west, they proceeded Taylor and that no- (endorsed of Afton on the right witness) car behind the eight ticed defendant’s information as within approached prior Chrysler highway respecting as 66 slow it hours to the arrest two stop. description that did He further as cars down but cars of similar the two passed soon as defendant question, testified conversation with them, his car anyone back wheels of the law else connected with enforce- throwing gravel going respecting he was ment in Afton cars two described chased at pretty so witness and officer Law- similar the time fast ones proceeded defendant’s arrest. turned their car around and Witness identified son person at the trial as the on their siren and chased defend- the defendant turn having mile. He estimated defend- arrested and the arrest as ant for about a ninety County. per made Ottawa speed at miles hour or Witness re- ant’s prior seeing iterated that defendant He said after defendant had better. stopped highways stopped car the intersection of 60 and his witness’ car was him, approached arresting got knowledge defend- he had and witness out no or in- Sands v. 72. See P. ways or the oc- about car 60 and 66. He formation said that he was time of driver cupant. car, just He said at the of the officers’ and had stopped driving a car his on the highway arrest defendant west side sedan, Chrysler Yorker, 66 and New four-door approaching defendant along highway east, blue color. 60 from the and that defendant failed to at the intersection. and said defendant next testified His was substantially that of Wayne Bagwell, name was John Peck, except officer variance to be some he had been convicted and denied that ever pointed out. except De- offense traffic violation. passed Witness said that as defendant stop his denied that he fendant failed him, glanced officers’ car over at 66, as 60 and highways the intersection and did not like looks and decided contrary Peck, but on the take a look at turning him and commenced “took stopped said that and thereafter their car around and “took off driving at manner, off” in a normal and was fast”. per miles hour speed about 25 or 30 *5 and car the turn their until he saw Witness testified that it 4 m. was about a. him; did not pursuing that he commence regular buddy quit when him and he and immediately recognize them as called officer accompany Peck to him the ackers, they hi-j thought might be that he night. of balance the He the rules re- said that he car about admitted drove his and quired two together. officers to ride per that ninety admitted miles hour. He deputy if Witness was asked there was shots, heard the officers’ siren and he sheriff Myers, who lived Afton named finally to light, decided the red and saw affirmative, and answered in the and said stopped stop. officer said that after he He green that he drove a new two-tone Stude- said, under up and came “You Peck car. baker He was to asked he talked car. arrest”, and then looked defendant’s Myers any early morning time of of his whis- admitted that some Defendant December 1956 and that he answered broken, one had been and that key bottles Eagle, met him once at time and that at the whiskey, said the odor of could smell witness; D. riding Lawrence was with J. whiskey. covered Wit- a blanket that that about one and a later wit- half hours with he had that a conversation ness said ness officer Peck called with him to ride why pur- happened as to he to officer Peck place of Lawrence. Witness said “Well, was he: he said he him. Said sue Myers that when he talked with he they got had he because glad that had Taylor (two also talked with officer wit- was waiting about two hours and he nesses on information) endorsed but denied duty gone off work or supposed to have Taylor that any they mentioned two cars thirty. At that time eight eight or about had followed for a short time before. Wit- mentioned nine o’clock. He about was prior joining ness said that to officer Peck breakfast, or something missing about stopped that he him and talked to a friend had Witness denied that he something.” at the of highways intersection 60 and speed prior the officers laws violated joined that later Peck officer him near that pursuit. commencing the point and the other officer, who had been was defendant cross-examination On him, riding got with out. Witness said that officers, stop for why he didn’t asked thought they he had phone talked radio “I with was loaded whis- and answered: Myers Taylor. with officers He denied key”. they up had block, set a road and Lawson, sheriff, deputy that defendant nied had William told witness and deputy early Peck morn- Lawson he almost being though came Siloam Springs when defendant and that one December the officers had ing told high- that it did at the intersection make differ-: used, they pretext, have might which road he ant and arrest him on some ence actually covered. thereafter he was arrested. Of defendant could called offi- course as a recalled Bagwell The defendant Taylor Myers cers had them and have prior his arrest witness and testified that testify under oath as to whether or not ap- December, 14, morning 19S6 at Peck, radioed Law- ahead either officer proximately he drove 4:30 or o’clock concerning rence Lawson through Afton and the driver and he suspicions. and their evi- automobile Such stopped Chrysler accompanying him having dence would have been admissible as tires got station and there at service bearing failed to whether defendant he a two-tone aired and that noticed actually highways the intersection of long aerial green 1956 Studebaker with a 60 and 66. The burden was on defendant parked the back seat behind behind his theories with No evidence. building; noticed that as witness left he argument doubt such to the trial made high- the Studebaker driven down court. trial court held defend- way a back road that 66 so he drove reversing ant. To this court in justify highway led noticed he accept we would have to case and then Studebaker turn off on a dirt road reject defendant as true testi- lights its turned said that as off. He mony of the two officers as to facts of Lawson, arresting officers Peck and after deny the arrest. Defendant did him, justice of conducting him to the by turning when the officers their car peace them that told showing interest did his car Spavinaw through started to come *6 speed up ninety per miles hour. him it would differ- any told not have made record would not the reversal of way come, might ence which he court, of the trial ruling and we gotten anyway. He would have principles forced reasons of the hereto- did not remember which officer made fore set out and taken from Wilson v. statement. State, supra, State, supra, Wood deputy called Art Peck in re- State judgment other cases cited affirm the any buttal. asked if had con- He was trial of the court. morning versation with defendant the Judgment affirmed. arrest Said he: and he said he did. Johnny “I asked how come him to drive so BRETT, J.,P. concurs. fast-—take off so fast. He said seen car and knew we were officers and he be- NIX, J., dissents. frightened. came was his load of first liquor and he scared.” became Rehearing On Petition for On cross-examination denied that witness BRETT, Presiding Judge. Taylor Myers he saw Art after he or Mr. duty arrest, morning went on lays great stress The defendant any denied that he had communication with exclusion of evidence court’s the trial radio; any
them denied that officers by certain been elicited might have which were at the scene of the arrest other than he dissenting fully questions, detailed Lawson, and denied that he heard offi- not sustained opinion, the trial court Taylor Myers by cer Lawson talk with answers were objections before the thereto car radio. light It is asserted that different given. argues in his brief might Counsel have shown the matter required getting ques Afton who saw defendant at to answer the witnesses place, suspicioned propounded by aired counsel. tires tions defendant’s true, whiskey speculation had a load of and radioed to That but under the may Court, of this per- Peck Lawson to await defend- decisions are not we
485 asking 556, State, Fain v. 14 by the P. 296. made Okl.Cr. 174 mitted, showing on the supposition State, 110, In 245 Tolbert v. engage Okl.Cr. questions, of hare 659, 660, P. syllabus have been. might four reads: answers what what the counsel knew If the “When a reversal on ac- sought readily have could be, he would answers evidence, count of exclusion to this Court questions available made record must show an offer of such what the proof as offer of making an may so deter- questions been. would have answers to mine whether or not was material do, an- left the instead This he did not proper, and whether or the de- not a mere matter swers injured by its exclusion.” fendant Hence, supposition. we are speculation and (Emphasis supplied.) questions, liberty to consider the State, In 359, Pruett v. 35 Okl.Cr. 250 P. alone, probative as of value. standing 1029, 1031, it was said: expressly In Cheeves It has so been held. impossible “It is determine from 729, State, 480, 196 18 Okl.Cr. P. the record what evidence was intended rule is stated: to be introduced, because no offer or predicated upon “Error cannot statement pro- was made as to what the a ruling excluding testimony, where * * * posed testimony would be. testimony desired shown Error predicated upon cannot be record, nor made as statement ruling testimony, excluding where the proposed to what the testimony desired is not shown in the State, be. White v. record, nor a statement made as to 1010; State, P. Warren v. 6 Okl.Cr. proposed testimony would L.R.A.,N.S., 115 P. be.” Stouse v. 6 Okl.Cr. 119 P. In Watson v. 287 P. 271.” 816, 817, it was held: A fair illustration of this situation is found “Failure to show what the evidence *7 in P. would been have had the answer been Johnson 256, 258, where, body opinion, permitted prevents in the of the from question it raising was said: the of improper the exclusion of evidence. this Before “Where isit contended that the court pass court can intelligently safely and competent erred in refusing to admit upon question a kind, this it would of defendants, by evidence offered the just have to know the witness showing must be some toas what would have (Emphasis to.” the to had witness have testified supplied.) permitted ques- he been to answer the point too numerous on this The cases are tion. argue, ‘Suppose Counsel the an- quotation. great to warrant further The swer of the witness been favor- authority supports of this view. weight able to the defendant.’ This court can- procedure suppositions object the not deal in in The in the fore- connection First, alleged with the cases is two-fold. in fairness going errors of this kind. The upon appellant is the trial court it informs him burden relative to prejudiced sought show that he proposed to be elicited the the action; questions propounded juris- may court’s the rule in this the so that he mistake, injury pre- Second, diction if in error. not correct error, speculation sumed because but that the matter from removes the and appellcmt appellate burden is the provides show the court with substance error, only just not injury resulting not a shadow with which to deal. (Emphasis may appear at supplied.) first that ques- since this It therefrom.” POWELL, the suppress J., tion a motion to arises on concurs. merits, the on the trial of evidence and not NIX, Judge (dissenting). point, in the cases not foregoing are in reason the witnesses and for the further reads testimony in case so the instant generally such are adverse proceeding good in subterfuge that I could not unfriendly may contended thus it opinion. majority conscience the ob- sustain it is error trial court to> contradictory for the I That testimony the in jections questions as are detailed the thoroughly deci- previous agree and the opinion. dissenting the record and sion of my opinion sub- court would in en- With the not However, latter contention we are stantiate a way. decision either tirely efficacious but find it disagreement, firmly re- Powell’s Judge believe appears, has only patently for it injury marks in Brinegar in- repeatedly held that error 464, 473, in- prevail in all should Hence, jury for is not a basis reversal. In stances. said: that case he By applicability the herein. rule the “This court a never has sustained provided in laying proper predicate search where evidence as reflected proof cited, questions cases ar- it that the record convinced presented are sought to be elicited rest a subterfuge search.” suppositive Court on a substantial re- thorough I am of only as a basis basis. With testimony supports view of the record pre- appeal, are for the contention we testimony reflects His defendant. suppositive entirely sented an matter approximately that at 5 o’clock 4:30 or because answers consideration morning, stopped in the town questions may been either favorable Afton, tires, aired the defendant. or unfavorable to time he a two-toned green noticed Stude- supposi- to engage If we allowed automobile, big, long baker with a aerial con- all, logically tion at it could seat, parked in the back back permit or court’s failure to cluded the trial thereafter, building, proceeded and that propounded questions allow answers East, on Highway at which time injury This defendant. resulted noted the fol- above described automobile obvious, witnesses were adverse since the lowing lights with its turned off. contrary testimony already given re- Officer Lawson fol- cause. therefore to the defendant’s description vealed that this fits that supposition the testi- logical as a lows *8 Deputy Myers car driven by Sheriff who ques- propounded mony in answer Defendant com- lived Afton. and the rather been unfavorable have tions would proceeded trip panion car their Of the defendant. favorable than returning morning, about 8:00 were that perfectly what course, manifest if it were when, Highways at the intersection of 66 those an- have been and answers would the began Officers Lawson Peck de- the have been favorable to would swers pursuit. Officer Lawson testified he ob- such fendant, injury result then cars, one the preceding served two for re- ground constitute showing would other, as follows: Criminal Law n. § versal. C.J.S. light a “A. There was car looking But, situa- 64-67, p. such not the stop. front him it came to at bar. As hereinbefore case tion say was “Q. You another car pro- stated, the answers him, car, light preceding looking did positive or been either could posed pass you? A. Yes. it nothing defendant offered negative “Q. Your car was Hence, headed east and although situation. relieve coming from 60 cars were headed error, was harmless error. was A. Yes. accordingly denied. west? rehearing is petition for However, don’t recall.” Lawson Officer preceded that car “Q. Now the being admitted with in communication you driving was car the defendant morn- officer from Afton on radio A. you? passed say went across ing prior intercepting the defend- of and Yes. officer, Meyers, drove ant. Mr. who Yes, A. road? “Q. narrow It’s a Studebaker -as described sir. Afton, observing as the car him in first stop the try to “Q. you Did appear. listed as a witness but did not No, car? A. sir. testified that after officers Defendant No. A. “Q. You didn’t? began pursuit high took their off at any attention pay “Q. You didn’t speed rate of because he didn’t know wheth- much, no. Not so it? A. they hijackers er or officers. He said came vehicle the next “Q. When stopped hearing gun after several shots. didn’t but say you it slowed across times, shooting admitted passed stop sign and at the they said aiming the defendant. Yes, sir, that’s west? A. you going that he The defendant also stated told right. back another he started come said, your way vehi- “It driving and-the officer wouldn’t have “Q. You were came, way he made difference which Right. cle? A. got anyway.” they would have De- passenger awas “Q. Peck fendant further testified that Officer Peck Right. you? A. there; finally glad got said he was we the defend- the car “Q. When they watching had been about hours two did you passed driving ant supposed duty' and he gone to have off Well, glanced over we A. you do? 8:30, something about 8 or and mentioned and we him, his looks like didn’t missing about his Defendant breakfast. he took at him and look to take a cided stated he had not violated traffic laws off. began pursuit. at the time the officers looks and like “Q. You didn’t carefully The record cannot be reviewed A. To see what you around? turned forming the definite off fast. he took so matter that was the story the defendant’s relative to reason That was the “Q. Alright. Myers airing Officer while your siren? A. turn on you didn’t true; Myers in Afton was .that tires around? turned After we When? communicated this information to the other certainly be- did “Q. Yes. A. trap deputies up a who set to catch the de- speed breaking was done cause trip; fendant on his return wait- limit. hours; approximately ed for his arrival speed breaking the “Q. He zmsn’t were stationed at the intersection started him? A. you when limit catching of 60 and 66 for after No.” whiskey. a load of Though defendant with *9 by officers, arresting this is denied testified he called Officer Lawson Officer circumstances could lead to no other con- at 4:00 a. Peck out of bed m. told Peck clusion. of him at the intersection 60 and meet to Upon being asked The failure of the State to call he did.
66 which Myers (the who -had been Officer from Afton to endorsed as talked morning, he re- lends to story. witnesses credit Afton) earlier from him the conflict in Regardless met once down of we plied, “I think up whether summed in Then he asked facts are Officer Lawson’s Eagle.” “Well, testimony that, glanced him of the two cars Myers advised we over at early him, there like his looks and we didn’t decided to followed replied, “I a look at him and he took off.” Lawson take Your Officer morning and 488. justify'the above
writer Has been unable to acts in stopping the defendant and this con- arrest, grounds legal statement for an upheld as tention has heretofore been in a just very search seizure. would be as by or It able Judge decision Powell in the pursued say, State, sound the defendant case to “We Saltsman v. 95 Okl.Cr. eyes because was black or his were 243 his hair P.2d where it was said: crit- blue didn’t like either.” No and we “Search a motor begins vehicle icism be herein directed at the meant to when officers move in to overhaul the many driver, previous holdings of this court to the necessarily they when search seizure effect that: Whether commence suspected to follow the driver, in its from automobile is reasonable is perform at the time analysis, judicial final be determined some overt act attempting to question, him, all in view of the circumstances such sounding the siren and made, so, turning spot under which and such light it suspect on the the trial court’s forcing curb, this court will not reverse or him to or act upon question fact where there finding having for its obtaining evidence, com- authority is a conflict of there is over the driver.” sup- petent reasonably tending to Therefore, this court order to be con port However, finding. "trial it court’s sistent, would;be compelled hold that the meandering far from funda- would be search begun when the officer turned make a search and seizure mentals valid around and turned light on the red subterfuge where is obvious face siren. long has been the of this exception funda- the record. The to the court that where the search was invalid prohibition against unreasonable mental inception its it by cannot be made valid the rule. This search must never overcome discovery of contraband or expressed a court has in numerous cases subsequentlybrings light. The search re carefully against subterfuge guard desire vealed that the defendant was loaded with may ignore tool which being the whiskey, but this court should not let down necessity warrant or to cover of a against the barriers unlawful search and to search defendant’s their determination seizure if complied the law is not with in complying with our laws as car without every protection instance. The afforded seizure. they pertain search and Cases under the Constitutions of the State and expression are numerous— upholding this applicable Nation is guilty and the State, Barnett v. see innocent alike. If we should let down these apprehend guilty, they Johnson barriers to could longer no protect serve to the innocent. clearly This established rule make such to-do about the The officers Asbrook v. Okl. P. high speed rate of at a driving defendant 439, wherein it is stated: pursuit. Officer Peck they began after security “The against absolute un- speed of 90 defendant reached testified lawful search or seizure exists with- and when he overtook the better miles or out guilt reference or innocence of him he was informed under person property premises whose or driving speeding and reckless. arrest for is searched. The mere fact that he is that Officer in mind Law- to bear It is well guilty, may reasonable the defendant was not son grounds to guilty believe that he is at the time speed limit violating the charge preferred took after the defend- around turned suspected officer of which he the officer testimony reveals that ant. The *10 justification will afford no excuse or light, on their red used immediately turned for an unlawful search or seizure.” In siren, fired shots. view of 30, Art. 2 of the Constitution began Sec. of this the search § I feel that facts these forbids unreasonable State search and performed these overt when the defend- of. in mind that It been It is well to bear has warrant. seizure, a without stop a running charged ant not with provi- this security afforded said that Attorneys for sign speeding. but with and seizure search unlawful sion get at efforts even for defense made citizens strenuous right guaranteed sins. This citizens’ facts and in several instances discovery of the may handicapped by ruling of the trial court. with preserve, unless we right we must may light our oath A different have shown impunity, disregard required to answer laws matter witness been the Constitution. and enforce questions by forth in the counsel for as set following are clear this state indeed provided: It is the defendant: 1951 196. Tit. 22 O.S. § par- may, a looking not peace “A. was “A person: warrant, a ticular car. arrest offense committed public “Q. aFor You had at all “1. no information attempted presence. you in his working when on that morn- ing respect any whiskey with person arrested has “2. When hauling through? in his felony, although not committed presence. Obj leading “Mr. ection as Gee: suggestive. felony has fact
“3. When committed, he has reasonable “The Court: Sustained.” person arrested believing cause for your In “Q. employ- the course of it.” have committed you did conversation ment attempted instant case The officers in the your anyone anybody in office or justify the search testi- seizure with the law else connected enforce- mony as follows: Officer Peck respecting cars ment in Afton two
“Q. you Where did see defend- to the one that similar scribed doing what was he ant at that time and you leading saw? one A. at The defendant time? Objection incompe- “Mr. Gee: highway headed west. crossed tent, irrelevant and immaterial. Yes, passed you? “Q. And A. “The Sustained. Court: sir. Exception. Page: “Mr. “Q. stopped stop Had at Peck, you telling “Q. sign he crossed? A. He before you oath that Court under were not complete to a but never come slowed looking whiskey in that car when stop.” pursuit? you started in denied this and stated Objection. “Mr. Gee: has al- stopped stop sign at the and took off ready been answered and for speed. appears to uncanny This normal incompetent, reason it is irrel- further linger the officers would immaterial. evant and approxi- vicinity intersection for “The Court: Sustained. mately 4 hours when defendant arrives stop, down but he slows does there- Exception. Page: “Mr. by justifies beginning imme- “Q. you ask I will whether or not lights shining, pursuit diate with red sirens suspected whiskey you in that guns blazing. blowing I cannot con- you pursuit? time started at the firing an ceive shots in effort an officer Object “Mr. Gee: incom- stop vehicle that had slowed down but petent, irrelevant and immaterial and completely intersection did repetition. previous knowledge of the unless suspicion “The Court: strong contents there- Sustained. cars’ or a *11 Exception. Honor, surdity. Page: “Mr. Your How would defense counsel antic- ipate gist proceed- that is the whole the answer this unless it could deter- by ing. inquiry mined which in the instant case quite was denied? It is evident from the “The I think he testified Court: record that defense counsel did know to several times. the answer attempting but was to learn Page: “Mr. I didn’t think strenuous examination of the witness. The to that. only way the answer could have been ascer- objec- I sustained the “The Court: tained was permitted for the court to have tion. objection the witness to answer. When the Exception. Page: “Mr. sustained, was defense counsel would you if on morn- “Q. I will ask upon speculation been dwelling mere to 14th, question, December ing in have dictated an answer into the record. patrolling the roads you were not out question herein to could have referred specific inten- highways with ques- answered “Yes” “No.” The you cars that stopping tion of propounded tions record, your whiskey? hauling suspect of might writer compe- were tent and should have been answered. being in- Objection Gee: “Mr. only reason for the hereto- rule mentioned and immaterial competent, irrelevant fore is to record the substance of the ex- difference repetition. It makes no pected answer so this court might deter- out tes- doing there. He what he admissibility. mine its question Where why. tified could be answered with a single “Yes” or “The Court: Sustained. “No,” this court needs no record deter- Exception. Page: “Mr. admissibility. mine its were If “Q. you whether or will ask competent the answers would likewise cars, these these you had observed admissible. Defense counsel gambling prior to cars, 24 hours specific within with the fate of client as the answer this arrest? you made time could have been or unfavorable favorable No, observed them. I hadn’t “A. to the defendant. There numerous ex- information no “Q. Or had ceptions general rule that forbid- them? anybody else den answer must be dictated into the rec- Incompetent, Objection. preserve ord “Mr. Gee: review. It is stated in makes immaterial. 737: irrelevant § C.J. hearsay it would be difference no requiring “The rule an offer of evi- is, if he had. however, subject dence to some ex- * * * ceptions Sustained.” Nor general “The Court: does apply question rule to a asked your writer thor- connection In this the cross-examination of a witness the line of cases familiar oughly adversary. called And where a establishing a gen- by this passed on question is in proper perti- an avail- to reserve in order itself rule eral nent, expected proved to be evidence, facts exclusion objection able witness need not be stated in and, on ob- must be asked question proper ruling order make the rejecting the thereto, must offer be made an jection evidence available appealSee evidence will be showing time, Appeal also & Error answer, § permitted to C.J.S. the witness given testimony object Obviously deciding factor wheth- introduced, facts and all the er acting in good sought faith admissibility. The its to minor traffic relative necessary establish violations or wheth- interrogating using while rule er application as a subterfuge justify an ab- constitute witness otherwise illegal hostile
49i suppress and con- questions case at bar the motion to Therefore, search. sequently and importance sustain Your author is proper of tremendous opinion handicapped welcomed the defense the court should answers helpful objections sustaining being most judge trial subterfuge. prepounded and committed re- heretofore paramount issue deciding the doing. versible error in so am of the information of previous they had If waiting opinion firm be rehearing that a should vehicle fendant’s cause, majority with granted be loaded in said expecting him to appear, warrant, opinion withdrawn further considera- obtained whiskey had not clearly clear tion. assume judge trial could subterfuge, not the case of tremendously have been contention held heretofore court has This
weakened. opinion majority recited suppress, a motion files
where defendant evidence to offer on him burden rests therein. allegations contained
proof opinion that However, your writer EUBANKS, Error, Paul Plaintiff in instances most is in the defendant since witness, rely hostile compelled to Oklahoma, The STATE of Defendant match swearing into developing usually Error. arresting of- between No. A-12591. latitude given broad ficers, be should Appeals Criminal Court of of Oklahoma. establish rules of within the June theory. these material objection to By sustaining was handcuffed
questions, the defendant sub- prove his contention
his effort
terfuge. previous holdings of this view
In the trial court’s
court, the effect suppress, will not on a motion
findings competent where disturbed it, judges the trial
testimony to approach most cautious
should finality. thoroughness solution supra case, Brinegar [97
In the 477], Judge POWELL approval from Wallace
quotes with 294 P. where
was said: (cid:127) uphold un- will not “This (cid:127) appears where it search
reasonable on some sub- illegally arrested one justifying
terfuge for the justify a search other- attempting to If the arrest is unlaw- unlawful.
wise unlawful.”
ful, search your good writer is
This, in been followed in the should have
law