*1 аnd Edwards v. reasons, For the (1975), foregoing above and Cr., we 530 P.2d ” State, Okl.Cr., judgment appealed P.2d 699 . . find the and sentence be, is,
from should and the same hereby AFFIRMED. any not aware of reason is This Court to this it not adhere announced why should J., BUSSEY, BLISS, J., P. concur. error, Therefore, find no we policy. assignment of error is without merit. assignment his second and final As error, contends that defendant admitting testimony from
court erred implication of other
which crimes or acts could be drawn.
criminal Defendant testimony
claims Sheriff concerning “making Hughes officers a Eugene DODSON, Appellant, Richard in the area of the house” and the search v. surrounding reporting testimony Oklahoma, Appellee. The STATE of implication creates thе of a vehicle stolen related to the crime for which the crime not No. F-76-579. testimony was on trial. This im defendant Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. previous which occurred the plicates a crime night. April agrees with the au- This Court numerous defendant, by sug- cited thorities Songer Okl.Cr.,
gests reading (1969), which states:
464 P.2d
“Although a trial court guard should
against testimony the admission of relat-
ing separate and distinct offenses for presently
which the defendant is not
trial, Court, it is rule of this as an- State, Okl.Cr., Jones v.
nounced (1958):
P.2d 432 “ ‘The evidence of other crimes in order
to be admissible must come within one of recognized exceptions
the well
rule. . .
However, thorough reading of the tran-
script by this Court has failed to reveal the of evidence in this case
type which this rule intended to exclude. In this case there is implication crime, of another
only an obvious
implication to the defense protection
counsel. To extend the of this possible implication every which
rule
might conceived defense counsel stretching be a severe of the rule.
would willing is not to extend the rule
This Court Therefore, we find this assign-
this far. of error to be without merit.
ment *2 Hoffman, Defender,
Richard A. Public Tulsa, appellant. *3 Derryberry, Atty. Gen.,
Larry L. Robert McDonald, Gen., Atty. Powers, Asst. John J. Intern, for Legal appellee.
OPINION
BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:
Appellant, Richard Eugene Dodson, here-
inafter
referred to
defendant,
charged and tried in the District
Tul-
Court
County
sa
with the offenses of Murder in
Degree
in
First
violation of 21 O.S.
701.1,
Supp.1973,
and Shooting
In-
§
With
Kill, After
tent to
Former Conviction of a
O.S.1971, 652,
of 21
Felony, in violation
§
Firearms,
Robbery
With
After Former
Felony,
Conviction
a
in
violation
O.S.Supp.1973,
acquitted
801. He was
Degree,
Murder in the First
Case No. CRF-
75-2181, and convicted and
sentenced
Ninety
(199)
Nine
years
One Hundred
Kill,
Shooting
Intent to
With
After Former
Felony,
Conviction
a
Case
No. CRF-75-
Fifty (50)years
for Robbery With
Firearms,
Former
After
Conviction
aof
CRF-75-2183,
Felony,
No.
Case
from
sentences,
judgments
said
timely ap-
perfected
peal has been
to this Court.
trials, which were
At the
consolidated
agreement, Ina Louise Morris testified that
15,1975,
September
on
she was
at
employed
Store at
the U-Tote-M
5950 South 33rd
West Avenue
Tulsa. At approximately
p.
she and the night manager,
10:50 m.
Chandler,
Clayton
started making prepara-
the store.
tions to close
She was in
stocking
back
the store
pop
cooler
when
a person,
she observed
whom she
defendant,
identified
Court as the
look-
ing
The
at her.
defendant pointed pistol
her
get
at
and ordered her to
down on her
replied “you’ve
knees.
got
She
to be kid-
whereupon
ding,”
the defendant
shot her
shoulder.
defendant closed
the cooler door and told her if
up
she looked
minutes,
would kill her. After several
edged
he
the waiver of the same. The defend-
her head and defendant started
she raised
ant stated that he was with co-defendant
firing
pistol
body
at her. Her
went
Selsor
the evening
of September
she lost consciousness. When she
numb and
They рassed
by a U-Tote-M Store
she left the cooler and found Mr.
awakened
and noticed that
traffic was light in the
on the floor. The safe and
lying
Chandler
area. They were both armed and had a
open.
was subse-
cash drawer
She
conversation concerning robbing the store.
transported
Hospital
Francis
quently
St.
Prior to entering
store,
defendant Sel-
she
days.
where
remained three
had
She
sor stated that they should kill the employ-
shoulder, head,
wounds in her
face and
ees. He went to the back of the store and
neck.
told the female employee to be still and lie
Morris,
R. D.
testified that on
Officer
laughed
down. She
at him and he fired a
15, 1975,
September
at approximately 10:55 warning shot in her direction. He heard
m.,
responded
he
to an
p.
robbery
armed
co-defendant Selsor tell the elderly gentle-
*4
call at the U-Tote-M Store at 5950 South
register
man
cash
by the
that this was a
wife,
33rd West Avenue. He observed his
robbery. He next heard several shots com-
Ina, sitting in a chair with blood about her
ing from the area of the cash register. He
Clayton
He checked
Chandler
person.
and
back and
stepped
fired four or five shots
any
signs.
not find
life
could
through
glass
window toward the fe-
parties stiрulated
that
if Dr. Lee
employee.
male
testify
Beamer were called to
that he would
Defendant Selsor’s statement was simi-
testify
performed
autopsy
that he
an
upon
too,
lar. He
stated that they did not intend
Clayton
opinion
Chandler. In his
the cause
any
to have
witnesses
planned
around and
Mr.
multiple gun-
death of
Chandler was
killing
employees
on
after the robbery.
thorax,
shot wounds
abdomen and
elderly gentleman
He shot the
and defend-
extremities.
ant Dodson shot the female. Defendant
Jordan
Detective Charles
testified that he
they
Selsor stated that
only got $500.00
approxi-
at the U-Tote-M
at
arrived
Store
from the store.
mately
p.
11:13 m. He assisted in the in-
Officer Evans identified State’s Exhibit
vestigation and found several shell casings
17,
No.
as
.22 caliber pistol which was
the counter area of the
near
store. He
recovered from under the seat of defendant
fragments
identified numerous lead
further
automobile in
Selsor’s
Santa Barbara. The
slugs
several
which were
and
recovered
subsequently
witness
released the pistol to
the scene.
from
Roberts,
D. A.
Officer
the Tulsa Police
hearing
camera
An in
was held on mo- Department.
co-defendant,
tions of defendant and
Mi-
crоss-examination,
On
the witness testi-
Selsor,
suppress
chael Bascum
to
their al-
that
fied
Dodson stated that after he heard
At
leged confessions.
the conclusion of the
shots he “freaked out” and fired toward the
hearing the trial court ruled that the state-
girl. The witness further stated that Dod-
voluntarily given
were
ments
and overruled
son said that he did not intend to hit her.
motions.
D. A. Roberts testified that he was em-
John James Evans testified that he was
ployed as Homicide Investigator
employed
major
Investigator
as a
Crime
for the
for
Barbara,
City of Tulsa. He went to Santa Barbara
the Santa
California Policе De-
pick up
to
Dodson and
partment.
present
September
He was
on
Selsor and return
22, 1975, when
them for
trial. Both
defendant and co-defendant
defendants were
in
parking
were arrested in a beach
lot
dressed
bermuda
Selsor
shorts and so the
Barbara.
went
subsequently
in
He
inter- witness
to the
Santa
Santa Barbara Police
rogated
presence
storage
both defendants in the
automobile
garage,
where defend-
Sgt.
stored,
Williams. Each was advised of his
ant’s car was
in order to locate
rights
affirmatively
Miranda
acknowl- proper clothing for them to wear on their
clothing
gеtting
represented by
trip. While
the same
return
counsel.1 The as-
automobile, the
Selsor’s
just
from defendant
sertion was made
prior to trial that
three live .22 caliber car-
recovered
witness
was going
Dodson
to
not
plead
guilty by
No.
Exhibit
tridges, identified
State’s
insanity,
reason of
pleading
Selsor was
Oklahoma,
the witness
way
On the
back
simply
guilty;
not
these
and that
were in-
of their
Dodson and Selsor
advised both
consistent defenses in that Dodson would
that
Dodson stated
he
rights.
Miranda
admit his complicity
have to
while Selsor
they
to the witness when
talk
wanted to
deny
Therefore,
would seek
his own.
it
The witness
de-
Tulsa.
visited
got back to
that
is contended
counsel
both
defend-
County
in the Tulsa
Jail on
fendant Dodson
put
ants
the ethically untenable
again
him
advised
September
having
position
decide which defend-
rights.
stated
Dodson
of his constitutional
to defend
ant he wished
with
most zeal.
had
prior
defendant
said
Selsor
is, if
put
That
counsel elected to
Dodson on
out the
robbery
going
that “we’re
to take
attempt
the stand
to establish insani-
witnesses,”
he
when
heard Selsor
ty,
Selsor
necessarily
then
would
be impli-
firing because he
fire shots he commenced
testimony;
cated
Dodson’s
and that if
bargain.
his end of the
up
had to hоld
put
did not
counsel
Dodson
from fear of
testified that he
Tom Lewallen
Selsor,
implicating
then Dodson would be
charge
identifi-
investigator
senior
present
denied his
own
his
defense.
Laboratory.
the Police
He
cation section of
Assuming for
argument
the sake of
tests on
conducted certain
State’s Exhibit
correct,
theory
*5
that
nevertheless we
revolver,
17,
on
No.
the .22 caliber
the
to
are constrained
find defendant’s assign
casings
at the
projectiles
various
found
error
ment of
to be without merit. This is
scene,
the
as well as
live shells recovered
so, because defendant
wholly
Dodson
failed
in
from the automobile
California.
produce
to
at
trial any evidence which
rested.
The State then
would lend credence to his defense of insan
defense, Dr.
For the
Rustico Dizon Garcia
ity. The
witness
pro
which defendant
psy-
that he was the chief forensic
testified
issue,
Garcia,
this
duced on
Dr.
stated in
Hospital
Eastern
in
chiatrist at the
State
response
questioning that he had no opin
was
Vinita. Defendant
admitted
the
ion as to defendant’s psychological condition
hospital for observation and examination.
at the time the offense occurred. Due to
upоn
that based
the ex-
He further stated
of
paucity
matter,
the
evidence
on
no
opinion
he
of the
the
amination
was
that
regarding insanity
instruction
was request
psychotic
in-
legally
defendant was not
or
light
In
given.
ed or
of this we hold that
The
had told
that on
sane.
defendant
him
assume it
even if we
was error for the trial
1975,
15,
he
alco-
September
had consumed
refuse
judge
appoint
counsel,
outside
beverages
gob
speed.”
and used “a
holic
of
herein,
we do
which issue
not reach
such
testified
an evi-
The witness further
that
harmless,
error was
and we cannot reverse
hearing,
pres-
was hеld
dentiary
outside the
See, O.S.1971, 3001,
on this account.
that he did
jury,
ence of the
not have
Error.
Harmless
opinion
psy-
as to whether defendant was
day
chotic on the
which the crime was
The
assignment
defendant’s second
testimony of
Garcia
committed. The
Dr.
is that
the
of error
trial court
by
erred
suppressed.
subsequently
was
the testimony
Garcia,
of Dr.
suppressing
the
assignment
error,
regarding
In his first
of
defend-
defendant’s mental condition.
must
rights
again,
disagree.
ant Dodson asserts that his
were We
As discussed in
required
assignment
error,
the
prejudiced
judge
when
of
first
Dr. Garcia
co-defendant
to be
hearing
both him and
Selsor
testified
evidentiary
that he
ently
ap-
1. It is to
noted that each defendant herein
the decision of the two counsels so
County
appointed
pointed
was
counsel from the Tulsa
to collaborate on this case.
Office,
appar-
and that it
Public Defender’s
The
certainty as to
defendant’s fourth
opinion with medical
contention is
no
had
15,
September
competency
by admitting
that the trial court erred
into
defendant’s
any opinion
that
testified
Exhibit
photo
He further
evidence State’s
No.
simply
guess.
be a
body
make would
might
graph
Clayton
of the
he
Chandler.
the trial court’s
agree with
previously
therefore
have
held that the
We
We
introduc
doctor had no
photographs
that because
in
finding,
tion
homicide cases is
competency on
as to the defendant’s
opinion
largely within the discretion of the trial
any further
that
evening
question,
if the
probative
court and that
evidence has
have
lines would
no
along those
testimony
outweighs
value which
the danger
preju
In Pruitt v.
jury.
defendant,
value
dice to the
the evidence is ad
(1955)
Okl.Cr.,
we stated:
290 P.2d
See,
State, Okl.Cr.,
Jones v.
missible.
question
that the
We
general
carefully
rule is
P.2d 1316
“The
exam
testify
witness to
as an
of a
exhibit and observe that
competency
ined the
it is an 8"
matter of discretion
largely a
expert is
X 10'' black and white photograph which
requires
and it
a clear
trial court
body lying
for the
near an
depicts
open
safe.
warrant a reversal by
of error to
proof
gruesome
is not of a
photograph
The
court on such matters.”
appellate
nature.
grotesque
It was admitted with
purpose
showing
position
the stated
third
defendant asserts
his
We thus
body.
conclude that the
of error that
the trial court
assignment
trial court did not abuse
discretion in
its
by admitting his confession to Officer
erred
allowing the introduction of the exhibit.
Evans into evidence. Officer Evans
John
rights
giv
the Miranda
testified
The defendant contends in his fifth
by Sgt. Williams in his
to defendant
en
assignment of error that
the trial court
argues
The defendant
that be
presence.
allowing
the State to introduce
erred
given by
were not
rights
cause
into evidence State’s Exhibit No.
confession,
as to the
who testified
officer
particles
lead
found
the back area of the
his
of cross-exami
he was denied
argues
store. The defendant
that Officer
agree
We cannot
with the defend
nation.
qualified
Lewallen was not
as an ex
Tom
The record reflects that
assertion.
ant’s
he
pert
testify
nor did
as to what factors
extensively cross-examined
defendant
*6
particles
that
the lead
led him to believe
Evans as to the circumstances con
Officer
actually expended
were
bullets. We must
The
un-
the confession.
evidence is
cerning
disagree with both contentions. The record
prop
that the defendant was
contradicted
after testifying
quali
reflects that
as to his
rights
his Miranda
and vol
erly advised of
background
as to educational
fications
untarily
a statement
to the officer.
made
experience the following questiоn
work
was
that such
opinion
are of the
a confes
We
propounded by
prosecuting attorney:
the
simply
be inadmissible
be
should not
sion
tell
“Q.
you
jury
Will
this Court and
rights
given by
Miranda
were not
cause the
qual-
ever had an occasion to be
you
who testified as to the confes
officer
the
expert in firearms identifica-
ified as an
Law 836 at
In
C.J.S. Criminal
sion.
past
in the
in other courts?
tion
250 it is stated:
page
expert
I have offered
testi-
“A. Yes sir.
statutory
with the
compliance
“Proof of
Courts,
mony
County
Osage
in Tulsa
relating
may
requirements
confessions
Courts,
County
County
and Oklahoma
by
person
made
to whom
сon-
be
Courts.
made;
subscribing
wit-
fession was
We would offer Offi-
“MR. SHAFFER:
only persons
may
who
are not
nesses
Honor,
Lewallen,
expert
Your
as an
cer
So,
proof.
make such
on to
be called
field of firearms examination
warning given accused be-
although the
experience
by the
on his
as related
based
usually
makes a confession is
fore he
Court.
it,
giving
proof
by
party
proved
proceed.”
may
“BY THE COURT: You
may
by any
made
witness who
thereof
372).
(Tr.
it.”
present and heard
was
fendant’s
thereafter
as to the
car
Tulsa Officer D. A.
The witness
testified
Rob-
projectiles
car
performed
impounded
he
on
lead
erts while the
was
test
therefrom, without
Barbara
Garage
illegal.
and his conclusions
ob- Santa
Police
was
justification
We
defendant.
therefore The
for this
was
jection by the
search
that it
to be without
assignment
purpose
this
error
was made for
sole
of obtaining
find
See,
State, supra,
v.
and Box
merit.
Pruitt
clothes for the defendants to wear on the
Okl.Cr.,
State,
923 legislature defendant’s con- intention of the support not authorize the same does clear- contrary, joinder To the the record of two or more defendants in the tentions. information; prosecut- the conduct of the same indictment or ly reflects to autho- guide- were well within ing attorneys joinder rize the of counts in the same indict- information; Associa- by the American Bar set out lines ment or and to authorize the Dupree by this Court approved joinder tion for trial of two or more indictments State, Okl.Cr., (1973). 425 514 P.2d informations, v. or authority or both. This subject appearing to limitations within H.B. finally contends The defendant which Act because of such limitation is excessive. We have punishment that the reviewed in entirety give must be its question of ex- stated repeatedly meaning to each Section of the Act consist- is determined punishment cessiveness with the whole Act and ent the Title there- facts and circumstances of all the study to. For this reason entire Act as it and that surrounding each individual case Laws, in the 1968 appears pages Sessions modi power not have the does this Court is set out as follows: conscientiously unless we can fy a sentence “CRIMINAL PROCEDURE —INDICT- all the facts and circum under say that MENTS AND INFORMATIONS —JOIN- excessive as to the sentence is so stances DERS conscience of the Court. Gardner shock State, Okl.Cr., P.2d 1200 Con “CHAPTER overwhelming evidence of the sidering the “H.B. NO. the nature and conse guilt, defendant’s “AN ACT CRIMINAL RELATING TO the offenses we cannot conscien quences PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR assessed say that sentences tiously JOINDER OF OFFENSES AND OF DE- of this the conscience Court. shocks IN FENDANTS INDICTMENTS AND and sentences are accord- judgments INFORMATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AFFIRMED. ingly TRIAL TOGETHER THE OF INDICT- INFORMATIONS; AND/OR MENTS BLISS, J., concurs. RELIEF FOR FROM PROVIDING JOINDER; PREJUDICIAL AND RE- BRETT, J., specially concurs. PEALING CONFLICTING LAWS. BRETT, Judge, specially concurring: by the People “Be it enacted of the State these convictions that were con- I concur of Oklahoma: affirmed, I trial should be but solidated 1. Charging of two or more “SECTION imprison- the sentence to life modify would in same indictment or infor- defendants In- Shooting With for the offense ment mation —Counts Kill, of a After Former Conviction tent may charged or more defendants be “Two (50) fifty affirm the Felony; and would in the same indictment or information if of Armed for the offense sentence year they alleged participated to have are a Fel- Former Conviction of Robbеry, After or the same act transaction or in the ony. acts or same series of transactions consti- Presid- by my colleague, I am authorized tuting offense or offenses. Such de- views Judge Bussey, to comment on our ing may charged fendants one or more joinder of offenses and regarding separately, provided or together counts information, defendants *8 charged the defendants that all of to- for trial. of informations joinder in the same indictment or infor- gether alleged participated are to have in mation of reviewing provisions the After same acts or transactions all of the 988, Laws 311 of the 1968 Ch. Session H.B. charged. Session, Legislature, Second the 31st for 436-440, O.S.1971, Singular 2. to include the 22 there “SECTION cited as §§ now plural that it was the my in mind but no doubt is
924 this the chapter prejudicial joinder; and,
“All laws in wherein from repeal the of singular hereby of words is used are conflicting laws. plural the such amended to include of provisions With the title in Imind now give purpose to effect to the words of turn to discussion of of each section H.B.
Act. 988. Trial 3. of two or more in- “SECTION (now O.S.1971, Section one 22 informations dictments or 436) permits clearly charging the of § two court order or more may “The two indict- or more defendants in the same indictment ments or informations оr both to be tried information, or which is consistent with the together if the and the defend- offenses joinder title; of provided defendants in the one, ants, if there is more than could however, it joinder limits such to those de joined single been in a in- indictment or fendants who are alleged to have commit procedure shall the formation. be the ted same offense or offenses. prosecution as if the such same under single indictment or information. one, clearly also permits Section the prejudicial 4. Relief from “SECTION charging of two or more defendants with joinder or one more counts in the sаme indictment information, appears it that a the
“If defendant or or which is consistent with the prejudiced by joinder joinder (counts) is of of provided State offenses offenses title; likewise, defendants in an or of indictment or in- it permits joinder here the joinder formation or such defendants, of offenses if all the who together, charged the court shall order an election the are in same indictment or in- counts, separate grant formation, trial of or a sever- alleged are have participated to defendants, provide of or ance whatever all the charged.1 in offenses justice requires. relief other one, though clearly, Section less further Repeal conflicting of laws “SECTION permits charging the of one defendant with parts laws “All or of laws in conflict or (counts) one more offenses in the same hereby repealed. herewith are information, indictment or which is likewise 7,May 1968.” “Approved joinder consistent with the of offenses (counts) provided in the title. construing In first One must view the title of an permit one to Section one defendant be subject if act to determine covered is charged by counts in the same indictment 5, expressed, Art. clearly Oklahoma Consti “ or information one must look closely 1971, 57, . tution . .a consid- sentence second which reads pertinent in of the may eration title the Act be en- part: “Such may charged defendants lightening, body because of an can- Act or one more counts together or separately broader not be than title.” Brown v. (Emphasis added) In v. State, Okl.Cr., 988, State (1954); 266 P.2d 990 see Freeman, Okl., 440 (1968), P.2d Prieto, also, City Okl., v. Oklahoma P.2d “ Court, quoting from Oklahoma (1971); further, Natural Gas ‘the title [is] State, Co. 187 Okl. P.2d 793 very interpreting body valuable aid (1940), as stated follows: Act and determining intent of ” “ legislature.’ supra, Brown v. ‘It is a familiar of rule constitutional title H.B. provides statutory 990. The for the construction that sections (counts) joinder offenses indictments give are to be construed so to as effect to informations; joinder thereof, or every part defendants provision that each informations; in indictments or the trial a section should be construed so indictments, informations, together of others, all yet harmonize with with a informations; of indictments and the relief giving view to effect to each every they alleged 1. The combined effect of these limitations less are all to have committed all prohibit charging of than charged more оne defend- the offenses or counts in the same un- ant in same indictment or information indictment or information.
925 consistent ment or as it shall be information were possible insofar provision in the of the section as a place. first a construction with whole; being every presumption (now two O.S.1971, Section 22 437) § is for some use- been intended has provision self-explanatory. ’ ”* * * purpose. ful (now Section three O.S.1971, 22 one, of al- sentence Section the second In 438) permits the court join § two or more “together separately” or phrase though informations, indictments or or indictments immediatеly after word appears trial, and informations for which is consist separately” or would “counts,” “together joinder ent with of indictments and purpose and have no useful no effect have informations, or both for trial provided modify to refer to and if construed title; however, it joinder limits such “counts”; this is so because the word for trial to offenses defendants, and if there already preceded by “one or is “counts” one, is more than that could have been say it would be redundant and more” the same joined in indictment or informa “together separately.” or or more” “one within the limitatiоns tion set out in Section However, “together separately” or is con- if one of the Act. modify to and the word to refer strued (now O.S.1971, 439) Section four 22 § “ that it reads . . . de- so “defendants” permits relief on motion of either the de- “together or may charged” sep- fendants or joinder fendant the State if the of of- “in one or more counts” all the arately” in the same fenses indictment or informa- of the second sentence would be provisions tion, joinder of defendants in the same purpose. serve a useful Fur- and effective information, indictment or or joinder of thermore, giv- construction would be such a informations, or indictments or indictments 988 in effect to Section one of H.B. ing informations for prejudicial consistent with Sections three and manner which is consistent with the relief from (now O.S.1971, the Act 22 438 four of §§ joinder as prejudicial provided in the title. fact, 439); gives meaning it to the (now Section five 22 O.S.1971, in Section three which reads provision “ 440) parts “All laws or states: of laws in § and the . . .if the offenses defend- hereby repealed.” conflict herewith are one, ants, is more than if there could have further discussion it is Without noted that joined single in a indictment or infor- been O.S.1971, 404, 22 which was in existence § mation,” (еmphasis added) which would when H.B. 988 was enacted is in conflict purpose meaning no useful or within H.B. 988 insofar as it with “ states that an whole, of the Act as a the context unless or . . . indictment information must joined could be in the same indict- offenses offense,” charge but one and I would hold information; gives meaning and it ment or O.S.1971, part 404, of 22 § was re- which enables four relief from to Section pealed by five of Section H.B. 988. joinder (counts) in an prejudicial offenses information, provision procedure which If the above followed it indictment purpose operate serve no useful un- to reduce the clearly would would number of in the same indict- joinder expenses of offenses trials2 and attendant less “ ‘ counts, trial, by acquittal any an indictment several . to avoid an unforeseen against harmony allegation is a collection of several bills proofs, . . . between lack of for offenses which on their legal charge the same defendant as to what or a doubt form of distinct, caption, appear Oklahoma, under one approve.’ face court will by [In authorized collectively by O.S.1971, 421, as true and indorsed found Bish.Crim.Proc. 404] object appears grand jury. is what it indictment, 422. And: ‘On the face therefore, every separate be; charge namely, the defendant in fact to charge count should offenses, idea that distinct under the with the if he had defendant as committed a distinct will, may, offense, principle joinder as otten as it allow them to the court it is on the because together, averting par- joinder thus from both be tried that the of offenses counts is admit- trials; (Emphasis added) or more 426.” the burden of two ted.’ Id. Boren v. [in ties O.S.1971, Oklahoma, Tex.App. 436- §§ authorized 4 S.W. or, cases, vary another class what 440] grounds. on other Reversed accusation, as, be the one is meant to so at the *10 defendant while at the same and the State prejudicial join- relief from give either
time trial court. by review of the
der SELSOR, Appellant,
Michael Bascum Oklahoma, Appellee.
The STATE of
No. F-76-578. Appeals
Court of Criminal of Oklahoma.
April