*1 Although District Court of Roger ishment of his murderer. Mills Case punishment capital No. comparative be carried merits the electrocution arguments Fesmire, the defendant have been Felix Jr. times, proponents Warden many Mc- moral, Alester, Oklahoma, argued abolition have Friday, for its June neither this implications, legal, and social Supreme Court of yet nor States, classify the seen fit United NIX, J., concur. capital punishment as imposition of in violation and therefore cruel and unusual the United States.
of the Constitution of . opinion, and therefore
We are impos- action in
hold, that the trial court’s Roger Dis- penalty death Mills
ing the A- (our No.
trict Case No. Court supported by appeal),
14604 on and sentence judgment and that
record hereby affirmed. be, and the same is should BEAIRD, Jr., Petitioner, James Franklin judgment and rendered The sentence County Roger Mills District RAMEY, Judge, Honorable District Fenton appeal), A-14606 on (our No. Case No. County, Oklahoma, Respondent. be, hereby affirmed. and the same is rendered judgment and sentence County Mills Roger Court of Criminal Oklahoma. ap- (our A-1460S Case No. 1143 be, hereby the same is peal), should affirmed. presented a difficult cases
These Wilson,
task for the Honorable Charles District, the 2nd District Judicial throughout conduct and demeanor
whose great lengthy proceedings reflect credit Judge Wil-
upon the bench of Oklahoma.
son, outstanding as one of Oklahoma’s judicious
judges, is commended for presided
manner which he over
cases. Arthur wish to commend Messrs.
We also
McComas, Donley, Eph Monroe John professional dedication highly for their respective obligations the Bar and
their
the administration as demon- performance in the
strated presentation preparation
court and the
during arguments before Court. oral the ex- originally appointed date defendant, Fesmire, Felix
ecution appeal, it is passed pending this
Jr., having by this
ordered, adjudged, and decreed judgment
Court that and sentence *2 4, 1969, April 35,344] case charged was with Ob-
wherein defendant taining Money False Pretenses. Under two witnesses magistrate. cluded case before proceeded as follows: The defense counsel court, please “MR. it we HYDE: If reserve our demurrers would like to point proceed motions this the defense witnesses. Hyde, is the
THE Mr. what COURT: any testimony your part purpose of at this time? court, please
MR. we HYDE: If are under 22 section O.S.A. like into the which I would to read record. Now, you going
THE
are
COURT:
theory
any
you
witness
must be
and ex-
offer
sworn
theory
amined.
on the
that it de-
go
pends
kind of
any
and there
going
give
isn’t
evi-
anybody
dence that he can—that
before,
excepting
give, as I told
man,
that you
got
wrong
or there
isn’t
man we
wasn’t
And that’s
crime committed.
going
depend
on what
entirely
plain-
is the evidence
feels
way,
exactly
tiff.
That’s
same
you,
I told
case of
demurrer
action,
that’s
as a de-
civil
as far
goes.
murrer
Any
sufficiency
objection
effect,
State’s evidence
a demurrer.
please
HYDE:
If it
we
MR.
will
the statute and make our
stand on
City,
Hyde, Jr.,
K.
Oklahoma
Herbert
of proof.”
offer
petitioner.
type procedure
This
inis
direct conflict
Harris,
Atty., Oklahoma
Dist.
Curtis
previous holdings
of this Court.
respondent.
In the
Art.
Rights,
17, provides:
person
pros-
shall
“No
§
OPINION
MEMORANDUM
felony by
ecuted for a
information with-
NIX, Judge.
having
had a
magistrate,
above
was held
A
such examination”.
County District
styled cause [Oklahoma
origin,
Jury,
fortified
Its
like the
Grand
created
part of
Constitution
This
prevent
becoming
which to
from
jy
O.S.
statute.
§
unjust
prosecu-
victim of an
malicious
reads as follows:
provides
tion. The
for the
Constitution
must,
“At the examination
preliminary hearing to ascertain whether
place,
the first
read
there is just cause for defendant
stand
*3
him. He
complaint
file before
the
in District
he
or whether
must, also,
the commencement of
should then and
a
there be
It is
released.
subpoenas for
prosecution,
the
issue
important part
of
prosecutor
the
required by
or
Jurisprudence and
not
be treated
defendant.”
the
lightly. Unfortunately,
seldom do
recited,
Also,
259
which
22,
O.S. §
find a person
mag-
who has served as a
as
reads
follows:
any period
istrate for
of time
has not
who
bound defendant over to District Court
the
of the witnesses
examination
“When
when he knew
would
have
closed, any
part
the
the State is
seryed by
judicial
better
having the
cour-
produce
may
witnesses the defendant
age to
pre-
have released defendant
he sworn and examined.”
must
liminary
hearing.
It must be borne
stated,
has heretofore
As
being
mind that the
hearing is
with,
complied
this statute should he
or
ducted for the benefit of the accused. This
Okl.Cr.,
State,
repealed. Shapard v.
437
parte Pruitt,
Court has held
Ex
Legislature
P.2d
Two
565.
Sessions of
Okl.Cr.
that would tend to lease, be material or that which would Ray PAGE, Warden, H. Oklahoma State your appears writer relevant. of Okla- and the State homa, Respondents. task for a most difficult create would materiality or pass a witness relevancy testimony of of Criminal of Oklahoma. then said witness without first any objection the State pass upon competency. of the fact Your writer is aware *4 day present
tremendous workload of rush, rush, tendency to has created up they keep
rush, might proceedings all so caseload. But growing the ever
with keyed
wheels slow, steady pace in executing the speed in
Democracy, while frequently associated been more
law has speedy and a anarchy despotism;
with always a substitute
proceeding is not
justice. deny that to opinion
This Court is of
defendant the
contrary a de- to the constitutes statute and hearing al- type of that
nial therefore, the Constitution. that this cause be order
manded conformity
conduct a
decision. concurs.
BUSSEY, : Judge (specially concurring)
Having Presiding been advised already
Judge that this matter has Mag-
remanded to the hearing, I
istrate for further opinion
am of the that the matter is moot although disagree do not author, I be- reached
conclusions question law so is moot and the
lieve require to not a written established as Particularly when
opinion. is this true some far behind
members of the Court so
their caseload.