*1 robbery Robert Elliot was al- Sheffield was sen- at time the presence serve to thirty years tenced to from ten Defendant testi- leged to occurred. have imprisonment Robbery, explana- for Armed shall be giving an in his behalf fied own and whereabouts affirmed. tion of his activities robbery, and de- the date time of the and robbery. de- participation in the He
nied hat, and maintained owned
nied he employment on he seeking had been identify day robbery, he did but car, picture by Officer of the found
Chambers, that he He admitted car. apartment. He denied was arrested in his Shirley DENSON, Error, Ann Plaintiff ownership by the gun introduced state, like he but admitted that it looked one Oklahoma, The STATE of Defend purchased shooting purpose had for in Error. trips. snakes while business field No. A-15152. prosecutor’s closing During Appeals Court Criminal of Oklahoma. argument made reference to fact he May 20, 1970. drug same store had been robbed Rehearing Denied Oct. earlier; years some five he (5) did not know whether bottles found apartment had come robbery, or
earlier re being The record
defendant was tried. brought out counsel that defense
flects been robbed drug store
fact earlier, during cross-examina years
five Bar Clarence pharmacist, of the
tion complain con
ton. While remarks, believe
cerning those argument proper scope within
were interpretation testi prosecutor’s counsel.
mony brought defense rule either side long
has on, commenting latitude in
allowed wide during presented interpreting
the trial. carefully have
We reviewed
before the and find the defendant Court charged; competent properly and suf-
ficient was offered verdict; the court’s instruc- reach its er-
tions and no fundamental proper; were upon
ror which the is found
sentence of the trial court should be dis-
turbed.
It is therefore that the judgment ordered of the District Court of Tulsa Oklahoma,
County, CRF-69-1207, case no.
charge of a criminal act. It is true that in order to assure a fair and impartial trial that the jury instructions should ful- ly present all material issues raised. Miles State, 283, v. 284; 41 Okl.Cr. 273 P. Ar- State, nold v. 266, 96 Okl.Cr.252 P.2d 941 . Likewise, a entitled to instruc- tions as to the regarding law any defense if there is tending O.S.1961, said theory. Title § 155, provides: involuntary subjection “The power superior person exonerates a charged with a criminal act or omission punishment therefor, from arises either from: Duress; or, 1.
2. Coverture.” O.S.1961, 156,provides: Title21 § person “The duress which excuses a who has committed a Walker, City, Robert E. Oklahoma prohibited act or omission must be ac- plaintiff in error. compulsion by tual force or fear.” Blankenship, Gen., Atty. G. T. Howard Defendant testified that she and her Gen., O’Bryan, Atty. Asst. for defendant in Hill, companion, dropped Herbert into Ro- error. Jewelry Square senfield’s Store Penn Center, Shopping City, with Oklahoma BUSSEY, Judge: particular objective in mind. Defendant Denson, Shirley Ann hereinafter inquired cigarette light- testified she about defendant, to as charged ferred was ers and left the with Hill then store Mr. District Court of Oklahoma with any knowledge without that he had taken crime of Grand Case No. pieces several jewelry the store. 34992, allegedly occurred on March leaving shopping After center and 12, 1968,when the defendant and her home, starting Hill back she testified Mr. panion pieces removed various of jewelry gave her the stolen articles told her to from jewelry store in City hide her It is defendant’s them in bra. permission. without Defendant was testimony that this was the first time she brought to trial before a January any knowledge that Mr. Hill had sto- 20, 1969, and found guilty charged. as jewelry. len the There was other testimo- Judgment and sentence was po- offered as well February 1969, sentencing defendant to officers, indicating that lice defendant had year penitentiary the state and a other beaten Mr. Hill on occasions timely appeal perfect- therefrom has been and that she had cause to be afraid him. ed. Defendant further testified that she was not married to Mr. Hill. is defendant’s first contention it was error for the trial court to From a we find review of requested refuse instruction on her theo that defendant’s own indicates ry of defense and that she was involuntari accompanying jew- that in Hill ly subjected powers superior by aof elry acting store she was fear duress which exonerated her Rather, from the or that she was under she duress. place presumed. without degree the theft took Bird indicated Clearly, later and it not until 362 P.2d knowledge preju- crime. Conse- do not think the defendant was aware by this appear remark in view of testi- quently, it would mony the absence of on cross in which attempting to establish examination *3 knowledge of to a in no admitted conviction because of criminal intent not indi- testimony concealing property does stolen Her the crime. 110, R inference, partici- a cate, (T that she conviction in by 123), even Okmulgee County of “actual Larceny crime because Grand pated in the 124). R (T prior or fear” as Defendant’s pulsion by of force statute, support by would record was established her own by testimo- quired the to duress and the unfortunate reference to an instruction as her as giving the of by a “known character” the witness was no defense. being a damaging more than her own admissible in- give all judge trial should While a testimony. Accordingly, we are the by might warranted structions which be opinion that this contention the defend- evidence, find reversible error ant without merit and does not consti- in- give the trial court to failure justifies tute reversible error nor modifica- duress, theory as the on the struction sentence, tion of the im- sentence support this not does posed year appears relatively of one mini- theory defense. mal. proposition defendant’s second It is proposition final defendant's impartial denied a fair and punishment was excessive and by objec over the trial evidence admitted Again, should be modified. we find no preju improperly tion of defendant which merit in this contention as the im Specifically, defendant case. posed appears light to be in view witness, by a cites as error statement evidence, authorized for city matron, that defend jail she knew the prior and defendant’s Grand con (T 54). “known character.” De as a victions. See Johnson argues by questioning fendant P.2d prompted attorney, which assistant district witness, attempt by this was an reply Therefore, finding no merit con- police defendant show the by tentions raised and find- thereby jury. prejudice bias and ing the evidence sufficient to verdict, we conclude that the interrupted judge that the trial We note sentence as be must statement, when made this witness Affirmed. response inad- finding improper such a Certainly, techniques calcu- trial missible. BRETT, J.,P. concurs. by convey- lated to ing of- inadmissible matters to a are NIX, Judge (dissenting): fensive, only result because in sentences unwarranted inadmissible I feel that the introduction of ma- voluntary but because it shows deliberate tron’s statement manipulation the law those highly evade a “known prej- character” was However, uphold sworn to I law. udicial and constituted error. further do not instant case we find such an offen- that the defendant entitled feel technique sive largely nor was reference to de- instruction “duress” as that was fendant as a “known of such character” defense.