*1 838 crime, presents of fact for trial which question constituted cumulative error the jury,
the sole determination of and sufficient require reversal. tending where there is evidence lant he supply cites no nor does support finding province it is not the of his assertion of bare same, weigh of the court to State, error. As we stated in v. Sandefur (citation omitted). (Okl.Cr.1969): State, (Okl. See v. also Jones It is not only counsel ... Cr.1971). carefully haveWe examined the error, assert but conten- transcript opinion and are of the that be- tions both and citations cause the was to support evidence sufficient done, of not authorities. Where this is verdict, the jury’s the appellant’s Motion and it is apparent the defendant has Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict been rights, of no fundamental was properly denied. this not court will search the books for to support authorities the mere assertion
Next, contends that that the trial court has erred. fifty (50) years’ assessment of excessive, imprisonment was therefore con reasons, For the and foregoing above stituting punishment cruel and unusual in judgment sentence appealed from is violation constitutional U.S. Affirmed. VIII; Const.Amend. Okl.Const.Art. 9.§ CORNISH, JJ., BUSSEY and concur. In support allegation he argues he should have received a shorter
sentence because his mental state was de
fective at the time of the act
prosecutor’s closing argument prejudi
cial.
It opinion is our that neither of these justifies
reasons modification of the sen- tence. The heard evidence concerning CALES, Appellant, Donald Evatt the mental of the appellant state and there- fore was able to consider when determin- ing his sentence. With regard prose- cutor’s argument, does not No. F-81-509. cite any specific statements made by the prosecutor as error but rather merely general makes broad allegations of error. After reading the closing argument, we justification
find no for modification.
Also, we have stated times: many “where punishment legal limits, within the will finding not be disturbed on
unless the sentence shocks the conscience of
this Court.” Manning v. 630 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1981). The punishment Degree
First Manslaughter in Oklahoma is
imprisonment less four years. than
Title 21 715. The sentence legal
within the limits and considering the crime,
circumstances of the we do not find
any modification of the sentence necessary.
Finally, the appellant argues that errors law during occurred *2 Sr., Devilliers, Rodney
W. Devilliers & Devilliers, Inc., Oklahoma for lant. Hugh Eric A.
Jan Manning, CORNISH, Judge: convicted of Interfer- appellant The punish- with a The set ing Fireman. (2) two with a years’ imprisonment ment at sus- the sentence be recommendation that The court adhered pended. trial imposed a two recommendation and suspended sentence. year 13, 1980, decided to burn On Cales planting prepare his wheat stubble to fire to started crop. Apparently, bean heavy due to winds. spread uncontrollably very from the fire became dense The smoke driving an hazard to and created extreme (1-35). The Tonka- traffic on Interstate units Department dispatched Fire three wa to the fire. unit drove onto Cales’ firefighting
One extinguish in an several attempt land Cales smoldering grass fires. areas in front of the fire pickup truck drove The blocking any progress. further truck embroiled an appellant became driving over about with a Tonkawa fireman Apparently, his land. with disputes been involved
previously or- Department. Cales the Tonkawa Fire off get property. dered the firemen several minutes After property. leave the marshall decided to and informed fire chief was radioed later arrested. the incident. Cales element of prove an essential failed felony making The statute crime. with a fireman interfere acting in concert person Any and will- knowingly each other who molest, with, or assault interfere fully willfully duties, knowingly and or who obstruct, interfere with or impede engaged in official firefighting duties are progress of firemen to reach the destina- acting “in the performance of their duties” fire, tion of a shall be guilty deemed of a purpose of 21 felony punished and shall be therefor by policy Public holding. dictates this To hold imprisonment in the Penitentiary otherwise, subject would potentially fire- for a term not exceeding (10) years ten men to willful obstruction and interference *3 nor less than years. 21 by individuals at time when the lives of depend upon the fire depart- ment’s swift and immediate action. The appellant contends that because his land is three and one-half miles outside the find that the presented We city limits, Tonkawa the Tonkawa fire de- sufficient evidence partment was authority without to act. verdict. Therefore, he alleged concludes that interference did not occur while the The appellant’s arguments final two are were acting “in performance properly before of their this Court for duties.” We find this argument review. He untenable. contends that the trial court erred in instructing jury, pros- The obvious intent of prohib- the statute ecutorial misconduct during closing argu- iting the interference with firemen is to However, ment requires reversal. ap- allow perform firemen to their duties with- pellant has failed to support either of these out Every person obstruction. has an obli- arguments authorities, with citations to or gation and a duty not to interfere with 3.5(C) statutes. Rule of the Rules of the these public they servants as perform their Court of Appeals, Criminal mandates that duty of protecting persons and property. parties provide must a brief argu- “[b]oth We hold that firemen engaged in a ment, exhibiting a clear statement of the good faith performance of their duties shall point discussed, of law or fact to be not be interfered penalty with under reference to pages of the record filed statute even if it turns out later they were and the authorities upon relied in support of engaged in firefighting activities outside point each raised.” (emphasis added). the corporate limits of their municipality. Under the statute the test of whether fire Further, it is the well established men are acting “in the of their rule in Oklahoma that a mere assertion of duties” is whether they acting were within error on the part the trial court without scope of their official at capacity citing authority in of the contention time of the alleged interference or obstruc is insufficient to raise the issue for consid tion. by eration the reviewing court. Medina v. State, 606 (Okl.Cr.1980);
We
Fryar
find further
support for our holding
State, 385
11,
(Okl.Cr.1963);
Title
Klein v.
Section 29-107 of the Oklahoma
Statutes,
(1918).
Okl.Cr.
nicipality ... (Emphasis added). BUSSEY, J., concurs. Therefore, we find that firemen act ing outside the corporate city BRETT, J., limits while specially P. concurs. BRETT, Presiding Judge, specially con-
curring:
I concur that this conviction should be
affirmed. When allowed the
smoke from the fire his wheat field to
extend across Interstate were actions
jeopardizing well-being per- other
sons. It is an established fact that exces- road, crossing
sive smoke a well-traveled as 1-35, major that a traffic hazard has been
created. The hazardous condition was de-
termined which Trooper,
thereby created to ex-
tinguish the fire. Wayne SHEARS, Appellant,
David
No. M-81-177. Shears, appellant.
Jack N. Ponca Michael Jan Eric Fern, Scott BUSSEY, Judge: assignment his sole on As Payne Speeding, from his conviction of Court, T-80-4606, No. County District Case Shears, defendant, Wayne David from the radar any testimony adduced incompe- device’sreadout speed detection used in tent, devices testing because the unit the radar verifying accuracy This themselves. proven not been accurate our State. impression issue is one of first