*1 Pla¡nt¡ff-¡n-Error, BENNETT, Master Oklahoma, Defend- STATE of
ant-in-Error.
No. A-14385. Appeals of Oklahoma. Criminal
Dec. *2 City, Hill, Jr.,
Archibald Oklahoma B. error. Attorney plaintiff in for Gen., Charles Blankenship, Atty. T.G. Gen., Atty. Owens, L. Asst.
in error.
BUSSEY, Judge.
was held on February 2, 1967, and at the
same,
conclusion of
both motions were
Bennett,
Master
hereinafter referred
denied.
On
judgment
date
Defendant,
charged by preliminary
sentence was entered in accordance with
Special
information
Ses-
jury’s
verdict.
It is from such judg-
County,
the crime
sions for
ment and sentence that
appeal
specific allegation
of Murder. The more
*3
brought
Court.
defendant,
of the information was that the
14, 1965, discharged
calibre
on
a .38
June
Briefly stated, the facts adduced on the
Oulds,
body
L.
revolver into the
of one Ted
trial reveal that the defendant
Patri-
by
and as a
of the
inflicted
result
wounds
cia Oulds were
April 28, 1965,
divorced on
assault,
instantly.
the victim died
After
and in the divorce proceedings the defend-
court,
preliminary
hearing was had
said
ant was given
rights
visitation
to his three
the defendant
trial in
was bound over for
children,
custody
whose
had been awarded
District Court on July
14, 1965,
the wife. On
at about
June
m.,
8:00 a.
picked up
defendant
Subsequently, upon
application of his
children at the
attorney,
parents
home
Patricia’s
a
the District Court on
where she was
6, 1965,
living after the divorce.
October
ordered that the defend-
Shortly thereafter,
the defendant
Hospi-
ant be
returned
committed
Central State
the children to their
Norman, Oklahoma,
pushed
tal at
for observation
mother.
way
his
through
into
house
the front
period
and examination for a
not to ex-
door and Patricia could see that he had a
ninety days. By
ceed
Decem-
its order of
gun behind his
15, 1965,
Court,
She ran to a
upon
back.
bed-
ber
the District
advice
father,
room where
Oulds,
her
Ted
hospital,
L.
was
attending physician
of the
at the
sleeping. Before proceeding into the bed-
found that the defendant
able to dis-
was
room
Patricia,
behind
the defendant was
tinguish right
wrong
from
and could ad-
by
Oulds,
confronted
Veldas
The
Patricia’s
attorney
vise his
own defense.
his
mother,
had
who
come into the living
room
therefore ordered that he be returned
The
house.
defendant fired one shot
hospital.
so
defendant was
Oulds,
at Mrs.
hitting her in the arm. He
returned,
20, 1965,
but on December
proceeded
then
into the bedroom where
District
in which it
Court issued an order
Ted
up
Oulds sat
inquired
in bed and
what
was determined
the defendant was
going
on. The defendant fired a shot
presently insane and
be committed
should
into
head
victim and another
Hospital
to Central State
for treatment
bed,
shot
part
into some
missing
Mr.
until such time as the doctors at said hos-
Patricia,
Oulds this time. He fired a shot at
pital
presently
declare
should
him to be
bed,
who had crawled under a
hitting her
hospital
sane. He was so committed to said
in the arm. The defendant then fired two
Court,
De-
until the
District
its order
body
Oulds,
more shots into the
of Ted
6, 1966,found, upon
cember
advice from
who was pleading with the defendant not to
hospital,
presently
that the defendant was
shoot
again.
him
The defendant then left
sane and ordered that he be returned for
away. Shortly
house and drove
there-
proceedings.
further criminal
after,
description
after a
car had
his
been
defendant, by
jury,
The trial
given
policemen
duty
time,
at the
January
commenced on
Box,
was arrested
Officer Hubert
19, 1967, which
January
concluded on
he was
sitting
observed
in his car across
finding
date the
returned verdict
police
street from the
station.
guilty
defendant
the crime of Murder
at
There-
assessing
punishment
Through
testimony
Betty
his
death.
Wil-
after,
liams,
Oulds,
the defendant filed
daughter
counsel for
sister
Patricia
Judgment
and a Motion of
Motion Arrest of
Veldas
and the
Ted
Oulds
deceased
Oulds,
hearing
A
on said motions
presented
New Trial.
evidence
13, 1965,
Court,
con-
had a
District
the witness
Motion
on June
Trial,
defendant,
question
in which the
for New
did
versation
jurisdiction
authority
kill
that he would
Patricia
defendant said
family
preliminary hearing,
if Patricia did
Porter to conduct the
and the whole
instead,
appeal,
but
for the first
to him. This witness further
time on
come back
judge’s authority
made the
raises the issue of the
that the defendant had
testified
sep-
to act in
previously
conducting
preliminary
when he was
hear-
same threat
ing
finding probable
arated
cause to bind
from his wife.
the defendant over
the District
Court.
testify
did
in his own
The defendant
authority,
As
defendant cites O.S. §
was the
principal
His
evidence
behalf.
provides:
Huber,
psychiatrist
testimony of Dr.
the indictment
“When
or information
Hospital,
testified that
who
Central State
filed,
arraigned
the defendant
*4
must
of
charge
in
treatment
he was not
the
of
thereon
the
in
it is
before
which
court
every
defendant,
him
the
that
saw
but
therein;
filed,
not,
if triable
if
before
during
year that he was
week
the
other
the court to
it is removed
which
or trans-
testified
hospital.
treated at the
He further
mitted.”
“probable” that the
it
defendant
that was
Keen,
further relies on
v.
Koch
only
14,
was insane on
1965. The
June
270,
LaFon,
Rath
255 P.
and
Okl.
any possible significance
other evidence of
Okl.,
(Feb.
1967).
“No shall be held for to answer early of McNaught, In re a 1 capital, crime, Okl.Cr. or otherwise infamous 528, 241, dealing P. ex- presentment unless on a or indictment of haustively contention, with this a Jury, except Grand arising cases concluded that under Article land 17 of forces, Militia, or naval or in the § the Constitution of the State of Oklaho- when actual service in time War or ma, prosecutions may bybe public indictment or danger; any person nor shall be information as are alternative modes for offense be twice prosecution that a by put information jeopardy limb; of life or nor shall does not violate either the compelled be 14th or 5th criminal case to be a amendment of the Constitution against witness himself, deprived nor be United life, Berryman States. See also v. liberty, property, without due State, Okl.Cr., 558; process 283 P.2d Pierro v. law; private prop- nor shall Turner, 291; 95 Okl.Cr. erty be 247 P.2d public use, taken for just without Turner, 95 Okl.Cr. compensation.” Jordan P.2d 748.” upon further relies the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Unit- In accordance with the authorities cited States, ed Section which reads as fol- above, must assignment hold that this lows: wholly error is without merit. impartial for the reason that of de-
This leads us to a consideration
of his
was included
forth in
no member
race
assignment
set
of error
fendant’s
show that
jury.
said
Records will
his brief as follows:
Fifty
jurors,
prospective
(50)
out of the
by requiring
the Court erred
“That
one,
Negro Race
(1) member of the
was
Jury
in Error
a
to select
Plaintiff
included,
from service
but was excused
fifty
approximately
(50)
a list
Volun-
could
upon
jury.
therefore
Plaintiff
remain for
Jurors,
agreed
teer
who
as
by
peers,
re-
jury
not be tried
of his
Jury for this
purpose
selecting
law,
by
of his
quired
since no member
case,
approximately
Hundred
One
permitted
serve on the
own race was
arbitrarily
prospective
(100)
Jurors
jury in this case.
empaneled in
That no
excused.
guaran-
Plaintiff therefore could not
the normal
resembling
fashion
by the Constitu-
protection given
ordinary procedure
required
law.
teed
as
States,
the Consti-
tion
United
AUTHORITIES:
tution of
State of Oklahoma.”
in Error
on Title 38 O.S.
Plaintiff
relies
Owens,
At
inclusive,
Mr. Charles
Assistant
through 33
wherein
A. 23
General,
brief, succinctly
torney
Jury for the trial
selecting
method of
proposition, which we
amply answers this
State
a case before the
Courts
statutory
hereby adopt.
Oklahoma,
set forth
provisions.
out,
some-
points
and the record
“Counsel
out,
judge
him
what bears
who
ARGUMENTS:
at the
acting
time
presiding
selection
from volun-
That the
of a
trial,
ap-
sent
came
tary
jurors
group
prospective
list or
proximately 50 veniremen to
courtroom
had
after the rest of the entire venire
case,
Smith,
Boston
who tried this
constituted a
been excused from service
veniremen,
and excused the balance of the
violation of the laws of
approximately
persons.
consisting of
Oklahoma, as set
in the Statutes
forth
*6
absolutely
record,
in
proof
is
this
There
no
thereof,
jury
the
herein
That
as
set out.
however, that the
veniremen from whom
according to
the
of a
must
for
trial
case
jury was selected were
the defendant’s
venire
be selected
the entire
law
from
jurors,’
suggests in
as counsel
‘volunteer
set
prospective jurors,
in the manner
contrary,
To
defendant’s
his brief.
the
in
forth
our statutes.
advising
when
the court of
trial counsel
whereof,
by
the Constitu-
That
reason
attention, stated
the matter came to his
how
in Error were
rights of Plaintiff
tional
124):
(CM
seriously
he
not re-
violated
that
could
girls
the
asked one
elevator
‘One
These
impartial
fair and
trial.
ceive a
you
stay
fifty if
to
and he
these
volunteers, curi-
prospective jurors were
said,
you think the mean look
“What do
seekers,
in-
osity
warped or
or those of
’
my face is for?”
to de-
minds to such an extent
flamed
by
alleged statement
one
This
them,
prive any person
before
coming
that
that the fact
veniremen indicates
impartial
trial.
the benefit of
fair and
among
being sent
those
to’
was
inclined,
they
sadistically
were
vol-
That
manner volun-
courtroom was in no
Smith’s
Case,
sit
Murder
unteering to
on a
part.
tary
Jury
select-
than to
Panel
rather
have a
jurors
prospective
Counsel,
the
that
submitting
ed from number
the defendant
manner,
ordinary
way by
pro-
and
prejudiced
and normal
in some
was
being se-
cedure, simply
their
attention
thus take
chances of not
directs this court’s
type of
at all to
on this
case.
effect asks
lected
serve
21-33
to 38 O.S.1961 §§
any
further
of Plaintiff in
or all
It is the
contention
to determine wherein
court
the
a fair
complied
receive
Error that he could not
these
were not
statutes
defendant
the
how the
defendant cannot show
further determine
that
he was
to
departure
prejudiced.
the
by any
question
from
The ultimate
sought
harmed
was
statutes,
to be
therein
Said
reached
an attack on
procedure
outlined.
the manner
in in which
however, merely
jury
the
was
relate to
manner
selected is whether
persons
must be summoned those
finally
the entire venire
twelve
to
selected
hear the
duty
procedures that
were fair
jury
impartial.
and ’to the
for
Voir
is,
course,
the time
dire
prior to
examination
designed
be followed
to
must
process
assure
actually
complaint
over
this. No
by
takes
trial
was made
complaint
trial
jury
counsel as
impaneling
jury.-
finally
the trial
No
selected
complaint
of nor is
evidently
by
made
as to
such
now
counsel
made. To the
contrary,
procedures, so that a
see this
preliminary
language between trial
these
meaningless as
counsel
after
jury
these
court
statutes
citation
selected
presented
prior
they
here.
to the
question
that
time
permitted
separate
were
overnight before
contention
point
with counsel’s
More
the trial
following morning:
commencedthe
provisions of 22
593-600
O.S.1961 §§
preparation
relating to
actual
‘MR. WHITE:
pro-
Does Your Honor
jurors
containing
the names
pose
permit
ballots
separate?
them to
judge,
and the
by
cleric of the
you
objec-
have an
Do
drawing
names
intermingling of the
tion?
clerk.
It will
the box
such
from
Well,
MR.
WHITE:
looks like an
not make
that
do
noted
said statutes
be
Jury
honorable
but I
me
want
the names of the
requirement
that
impress
them with
fact
now
instances,
in all
be drawn
jurors,
they
things
read
about
comprising
jurors
list of
entire
papers are not to be committed on this
this would be
submit that
We
venire.
Jury.’
(emphasis added)
and one that
requirement
unreasonable
showing here,
Again, there is no
has
handling
completely thwart
would
made,
proof
ever
an offer of
there
been
as.
such
counties
trials multi-court
case,
jurors
that the
who
twelve
heard this
counties, where sev-
and Tulsa
them,
less
fair and
than
process
im-
be
courts
eral
impartial.
The fact
found
simultaneously. Under
juries
paneling
death
guilty
and assessed the
impossible,
theory
this would
counsel’s
provide
proof.
penalty
such
does
their individual
entire venire and
particu-
In,
ato
to be sent
would have
ballots
his brief counsel sub-
same area of
was selected
jitry
court, and
lar
tried
mits to
*7
then be
the venire
the remainder of
could
jury
peers, in that member of
a
of his
no
court.
another
sent to
jury
served
Negro
the
race
on his
Fortunately,
specific
Negro
although
only
is no
member
the
there
there
one
of
approves
in this
that
panel
approximately
statute
area
substan-
in
of
race included
the
compliance (such
jurors
tial
fifty
jury
as 38 O.S.1961 29
from which his
§
relating
fail,
summoning
venire),
argument
of the
selected. This
must
opinion
submits,
has
that
this court
been of the
lacks one essential
state
because
compliance
proof
with the statutes
ingredient,
being
substantial
that
or offer of
impaneling
a
dealing
jury
of
is
that
discrimination ex-
a
of
scheme
preju-
County
where
deviation is not
in the trial
sufficient
isted Oklahoma
State,
226,
41
Young
court,
systematically
Okl.Cr.
whereby
dicial. See
v.
were
Negroes
426,
State, 42
duty generally
P.
and Michael v.
in the
jury
271
Okl.
excluded from
specifically
Q. Your official it was. Registrar Vet- am Chief A. I Q. Hospital of ? Who the doctor Administration eran’s City. Kapland. A. Dr. keeper of the records Q. You are Q. you Is he longer with ? Hospital? Veteran’s A. is not. Yes, sir, I am. A. Q. don’t he You know where is? Myers, you know the Mr. do Q. I in the military. A. understand he is trial, here? Master Q. Sir? sir, Yes, of him. I have heard A. military. A. I understand is in the he your ? he in institution Q. Was Q. Where ? occasions. He was several A. navy. In the A. treated for? Q. was he What information, navy, my Q. that is too, testify. if the and not available to McKINNEY: moment now MR. Just please, may I ask this witness Court you Testifying your from records qualifying question ? you, original records before don’t have the you? Very well. THE COURT: I do. A.
MR. McKINNEY: please, If MR. McKINNEY: this Defendant? Q. you Did treat ever objection that this anything have an still A. I did not. I there is might testify to. notice witness did not. We ob- McKINNEY: You MR. there, (spelling) Dr. Ulrich doctor another any testimony by this ject at this time to City? U-l-r-i-c-h, is he in Oklahoma treatment he did not witness he As far as I know THE WITNESS: perform himself. isn’t, sir. directly have statute MR. WHITE: We No, isn’t here. he MR. WHITE: question. brought it to Your I on the the law I don’t believe McKINNEY: MR. Honor. examination right to cross permits our The law take MR. McKINNEY: doesn’t be— report submitted to right exam- away from us as cross our Objection be sus- any alleged mental condition. ination as to tained. 499. MR. WHITE: O.S. testify? he can’t mean MR. You WHITE: 499? THE COURT: O.S. he what knows of THE COURT: Of MR. WHITE: O.S. We knowledge. own exemplified copy be introduced into MR. WHITE: Sir?
record. BY MR. what he knows of (continuing) WHITE: THE COURT: Of knowledge. own Myers, Now while the Q. Mr. Well, just want him to
looks at statute. I would like MR. WHITE: if knows question. records say, ask another are the —these di- your was there for. show under whose the records what Do records rection, supervision or observation pro- simply statute This THE COURT: Defendant was? by which records of means vides the *9 They A. do. be au- can States Government the United Q. thenticated. Sir? They right.
A. do. All WHITE: MR. give MR. WHITE: Now would the Court (continuing) BY MR. WHITE: twenty-four apply hours us to Su- believe, report your you have Q. I preme Court for Writ Mandamus and hand? money? save us all a lot time and lot I do. A. any pro- THE I know COURT: don’t Q- Sir? delay cedure that warrants the a trial do, A. I sir. purpose. for such exemplified copy Q. you made Have Well, pro- MR. WHITE: there is such that record? cedure. IA. have— MR. McKINNEY: is it? Where Q. day Within the last or two ? jus- MR. WHITE: Where the interest of (Continuing) A. copy upon Have made a tice would be served. request summary of the narrative posi- THE patient’s COURT: What is hospital State’s for the treatment tion? period hospitalization. last of his MR.
Q. position it McKINNEY: complete The State’s is Is and accurate ? that our witnesses have all been here and accurate, summary complete A. The is put stand and cross ex- sir. amination defense and we feel like MR. WHITE: We offer in evidence the has the same rights State on cross original your record and ask Honor any point examination on involving the permit us it to withdraw and substitute an sanity case whether it involves or whether exemplified copy. it. did did not do MR. McKINNEY: which the To State objects The State continuance. The objects being origi- as not same as the ready. is presented We have our copy. nal testimony and Defendant knew WHITE: MR. Sir? coming up. case was THE being COURT: Not same as right Now he had the subpoena original copy. doctors he wanted part to no matter what going The is the State’s Court sustain country the doctor was in. objection ground that these records on the MR. WHITE: You can’t subpoena issue a are not the best evidence. except coextensive with the State. evidence, Well, the MR. WHITE: best Deposition THE A COURT: could have The they are best available. man is been taken. navy. MR. Depositions WHITE: can’t be taken May well be. THE COURT: navy. on man in some time MR. And has been for WHITE: statutory MR. McKINNEY: There are provides that expressly the statute provisions. admissible in evidence. are these Well, THE COURT: the motion for con- original The same as THE COURT: tinuance— copy. MR. All right, your WHITE: respon- right, original All rec-
MR. WHITE: sibility. You the man that trying where it is the best ords are admissible the mad man and not me. evidence available. that, THE COURT: understand Mr.
THE The Court sustain COURT: White. [sic], exhibit State’s The motion for continuance will be WHITE: Sir?
MR. denied. will sustain the MR. WHITE: Sir? exhibit State’s [sic]. *10 Oh, MR. just for continu- McKINNEY: I The motion a moment.
THE COURT: copy legible am afraid it not a if is will be denied. ance please, object being Court we to it per- you will right All MR. WHITE: legible Illegible copy. parts. evidence mit the into introduction original records? it, Casey. THE Let me see COURT: n No, (THEREUPON, sir, it is not the best exhibit was handed THE COURT: Court.) evidence. Well, know— BY (Continuing) I don’t MR. WHITE:
MR. WHITE: you Q. doctor, ques- (Continuing) : Now answer the BY MR. WHITE you please sir, tion. is the De- Will Kapland that 'Dr. Q. you stated I believe fendant’s Exhibit No. an accurate gone? is copy records ? of those es, A. Y sir. A. It is. And, longer you ? Q. with no Q. Sir? Yes, A. sir. A. It is. department And, your Q. the records of MR. It WHITE: is. We offer Defend- United States that he is in the show ant’s Exhibit No. into evidence. Navy? MR. McKINNEY: objects The State for es, A. Y sir. formerly stated, reasons it waives our is stationed? Q. you know where he Do right for cross examination. sir, left No, as I remember he A. THE Mr. Myer, COURT: where is the July of authentication? Q. Sir? THE I WITNESS: haven’t been asked— July A. I he left in As remember well, what is the need it, to authenticate navy. for the sir? we right, All offer MR. WHITE: MR. WHITE: It is exemplified copy records. gives you. That is bottom step down, sir. THE You COURT: there. Wait, to ask I would like MR. WHITE: THE I any type COURT: mean of doctor, just this, stand take the certificate that it is a copy. true moment more. THE Well, WITNESS: I any don’t have (Continuing) BY MR. WHITE: certificate it No, sir, is a copy. true exempli- Q. you made an Have accurate I don’t. copy fied record ? THE All right, just COURT: that is A. I have. photostatic copy. ' you if Defendant’s Exhibit Q. I will ask Yes, THE sir, WITNESS: it is. copy? 1 is that THE COURT: Without authentica- copy A. final This narrative tion of kind. summary period hospitaliza- for a Yes, THE WITNESS : sir. tion from November 8— THE Any COURT: questions further MR. if the McKINNEY: Now this witness? please, object any testimony refer- MR. ence the records. WHITE: (Continuing) Q. compared You photostatic That’s Does correct. copy original and it is cor- counsel State care examine as rect? trying to authentication. to make an Yes, A. proof here. offer of believe is.
264 properly authenticated records of a And, keeper are those the the of
Q. psychiatrist physician which contain or records? expressions opinion diag- the of their or am, A. sir. physical a mental To nosis of or condition. All right, the Court THE COURT: Supreme contrary, Court has held the the previously grounds it the stated deny diagnosis the inadmissible the of cause of ground that rec- the additional the and on by pathologists perform- death made properly authenticated. ord is not autopsy pathologist ing an when the Exceptions. MR. WHITE: present subject not court and to cross Exceptions. THE COURT: by party. opposing examination the See That is all. Sturm, Okl., MR. WHITE: Horn v. 408 P.2d In State, Okl.Cr., the recent case of Robison v. may step down, You Mr. that P.2d held the court 430 we Myer.” where, committed reversible error over the now, as contention the defendant’s It is defendant, the trial objection of counsel for trial, the records time of that at the it was the permitted the introduction of 12 provisions under the of admissible were accused, record which con- service of providing: the same O.S. § opinion relating the tained evidence “Exemplifications from the books of physical and mental condition the of ac- government the of departments the of In that holding cused. such evidence States, any papers filed or the United inadmissible, we stated: therein, in evidence shall be admitted “ * ** yet There is another reason effect as manner and with like why portion the admission of this by the originals, when attested officer improper, medical record was vio- originals.” custody such having the II, provisions lates of Article 20 of § SOI, 12 also relies on O.S. Defendant § pro- which Constitution provides: which part that a defendant has a vides ad- books acount be “Entries by right to confronted the witnesses evidence, it is made to when mitted appearing against purpose him. The person who appear oath of the guarantee this constitutional is to insure entries, are that such entries made the every person tried for commission correct, at or near made right of a crime the to cross-examine they which of the transaction to time persons making are ad- statements which relate, upon proof handwriting or against evidence the defend- mitted into entries, in person made the who ** *” ant. absence from the his death or case of elementary it is if We believe county, upon proof that same were or right the defendant has a to cross-examine business.” in the usual course of made prosecution, in a criminal witnesses An excluded records examination right. has the same State Hospital Administration Veterans holding To summarize narrative form and our reveal case, opinion opinion instant are of the and the of Dr. contain conclusions hearsay written Kapland relating psychiatric of a Leonard psychiatrist physician or is not admissible condition of defendant. provisions either the 12 under cited several cases wherein this Court O.S. has § 501, supra, merely Supreme because it Court of O.S. § approved properly been under the Oklahoma, the introduction has authenticated statutes, records, provisions public those when the properly authenticated physician present psychiatrist or is not single instance where but has cited Court, Supreme Court, court and to cross-examination or the has party. the adverse In order to approved the be admitted introduction into evidence provisions Counsel under further alluded into evidence failure of SOI,the authenti- interpose and 12 O.S. the defendant’s trial counsel to O.S. § § be ad- public proper objections records must otherwise cated admission of cer- hearsay as to statements tain missible evidence tended to enflame the short, jury. admissible where rendered counsel concedes that there opinions are *12 present in court and not that the the declarant is was no doubt defendant committed opportunity homicide, to party has opposing no but that errors of omission jury and commission so enflamed the cross-examine. impose punish- greater caused them to Defendant, brief, lastly con imposed by than ment would have been jury trial court coerced tends circumstances, jury similar another under when, guilty returning verdict of into absent these errors. “twelve jury had deliberated some carefully hours” the court returned the and one-half have examined We case, instructed them to the courtroom and instant and are jury the record totality cir further deliberate. from the to us, cumstances, and record before carefully record We have examined the the defendant committed homicide of error, assignment with this in connection convicted, but that under which stands nothing improper in the conduct find case, jus circumstances the unusual Moreover, trial court. we observe of the by modifying the would best be served tice had deliberated time which death in the and sentence from judgment eight hours. not exceeded and one-half had imprison to term life chair electric deliberate, instructing further In to Penitentiary, and as so ment the State scrupulously meticulously and the trial court modified, should judgment and sentence jury, concluding with these informed be, hereby, affirmed. and the same is the case page 364 of appearing words made: wherein death sentences For cases Okl.Cr., State, 345 v. modified see Mitts repeat, you judges of again
“I are the one); dissimilar to this (a P.2d 913 facts, the Court is State, 222, 130 P.2d Okl.Cr. Moore v. 75 you all I law. statements made to State, 114; 112 Murphy v. 72 Okl.Cr. now, express not, nor I or inti- do State, 438; Okl.Cr. mate, indicate, P.2d Benton v. any way the con- nor 168; State, Easley v. Okl.Cr. P.2d by you in this reached clusions to be way 143 P.2d or Nor I case. do intend Verdict, directly coerce a
manner modified from Judgment and sentence indirectly, attempt to force imprison- life electric chair to death case. I ask that Verdict modified, ment, affirmed. and as so again, Jury Room and your return your earnestly, under diligently and NIX, J.,P. concurs. oaths, your deliberations.” resume opinion that the record We are of BRETT, Judge (specially concurring). error. support assignment does with the at in concur results arrived Court, ap- opinion herein, argument but in- before BUSSEY’s In oral reluctantly reducing stead of counsel for sentence from pellant penalty ad- of trial counsel’s death life imprisonment, that because I would argued present modify evidence vancing he did not the sentence as was done in Mitts years, State, Okl.Cr., light ninety-nine further P.2d have cast would which prior years imprisonment (99) mental condition Peni- defendant’s tentiary. convicted. stands homicide of