*1 1133 tending ent the de- evidence to connect get open. He returned could car fendant with commission of got out of the car and the crime, jury may that infer that open the door. from with Shelton went speaks the truth as he, defendant, lights, car to all.” saw the When arrested. drove off and was thereafter Also, State, Okl.Cr., see v. Sizemore an P.2d 1330 presented (1973). evidence of The defendant his com- through the alibi instant case we believe there was that he was to the effect mon-law wife accomplice’s sufficient corroboration of the question and night home with her on testimony and therefore find no merit to on his car to Cecil Cole that he had loaned proposition. night. Having finding reviewed the record and alleged are in defend- Numerous errors error, opin- no fundamental we are of the Error; only do we ant’s Petition in two judgment appeal- ion that the and sentence enough to warrant dis- deem meritorious be, hereby, ed should and the same is from cussion. affirmed. First defendant contends that BRETT, J., BUSSEY concur. J prejudiced jurors he was in that one of the was a brother aof Shawnee Police Offi
cer, At which was known to the District
torney, but not to the defendant. known before this Court does not jurors on
contain the examination of the
therefore,
dire,
their voir
this Court cannot
Appellant,
DOYLE,
Linda Jean
say
questions
ju-
were asked of
gave
jurors
rors or what
when
answers
Appellee.
Oklahoma,
The STATE of
qualifications.
examined as
to their
No. A-18116.
Therefore, as far as
shows no
the record
Appeals of
of Criminal
Oklahoma.
objection
was made
defendant as to the
juror’s qualification
juror
as a
sit
June
this case.
Rehearing
July 5,
Denied
State,
Okl.
the case of Roberson v.
Cr.,
held in
(1968),
paragraph Syllabus: duty
“It is the of defendant to qual- dire as to their
jurors on their voir so,
ifications, if do he fails to point, even
waives
though disqualification unknown verdict.”
him until after rendition of proposi- find merit in this therefore no
tion. next contends
The defendant accomplice was not testimony of the
sufficiently corroborated.
In the case of Nation held this Court (1971),
paragraph Syllabus: 4 of the as to accomplice is
“If the corroborated independ- fact, facts, by
one material *2 April
Lowell further testified that on
19,
p.m.
he and
approximately 6:00
driving
Arthur Linville were
in the vicini-
ty
apartment
of the above mentioned
com-
plex
Lindsey
at the corner of
located
Classen, Norman,
He stated
Oklahoma.
*3
they
conversing
observed defendant
companion
apart-
male
the front of
Linville,
driving
complex.
ment
who was
vehicle,
complex and
stopped
their
at the
with de-
engaged
Lowell
a conversation
companion.
fendant and
Lowell asked
her
you
acid?” De-
get
defendant “Did
not,
responded
inquired
but
fendant
she
quan-
in a
whether he would
interested
tity
“speed.”
his interest
He indicated
fifty
had
Whitlock, Norman,
appellant.
(SO)
and defendant stated she
for
F.
Sam
Defendant’s com-
mini-bennies for sale.
Gen., Nathan
Derryberry, Atty.
Larry
J.
panion
presence and the trio
left their
Gen.,
appellee.
for
Atty.
Gigger, Asst.
ob-
into the residence. Defendant
ceeded
pack-
cellophane
from the kitchen a
tained
OPINION
purportedly containing fifty (50)
age
BLISS, Presiding Judge:
dollars
requested fifteen
mini-bennies and
They
exchange
for
them.
($15.00)
District
of Cleveland Coun-
thirteen
price of
CRF-72-204,
agreed
negotiated
appellant, Linda
ty, Case No.
exchange was con-
and the
($13.00)
to as de- dollars
Doyle,
referred
hereinafter
Jean
Lowell locked
summated. Linville and
fendant,
and convicted
charged, tried
was
1, in a
Exhibit
marked as State’s
package,
a Controlled
for the offense of Sale
carrying in their
they
an
were
Substance,
metal container
Dangerous
to-wit: Sale
vehicle,
to Offi-
package
fixed
and delivered
Amphetamine.
Her
April
years imprisonment.
Gary
at
From
cer
Robberson
(2)
two
sentence,
perfected
judgment and
has
she
also an
testified he was
Linville
Arthur
timely appeal
to this Court.
narcotics officer
acting undercover
was an
Jay
testified he
Officer
Lowell
on the
County
Office
Cleveland
Sheriff’s
acting
narcotics officer
undercover
testimony
Linville’s
date.
mentioned
above
during
Office
County Sheriffs
Cleveland
all material
substantiated
and
corroborated
April
Approximately
month
Lowell’s
portions of Officer
1972, met
April 19,
prior to
one week
nec-
not be
that reason will
For
above.
at the Golden
Richey
Stowe
defendant
description of
detailed
essary
give
Cam-
Cue,
located at the
an establishment
testimony.
Linville’s
Corner,
pair requested
pus
Norman.
Robberson, Cleveland
Gary
Officer
City
a rock concert.
a ride to Oklahoma
Sheriff,
he re-
testified
Deputy
County
agreed
them
to drive
refused but
Lowell
Officers
from1
Exhibit
State’s
ceived
route to
apartment.
en
While
defendant’s
exhibit
Lowell, sealed
Linville
conversation, de-
during a
apartment,
en-
Investigation
Bureau
an Oklahoma
a rock
to attend
planned
stated she
fendant
Don
envelope to
delivered
velope and
City
intended
in Oklahoma
concert
In-
Bureau
State
at the Oklahoma
Flynt
that con-
at
purchase a
of LSD
Laboratory.
vestigation
sell
date,
she offered
Also on this
cert.
Bureau
State
Flynt, Oklahoma
Don
he refused
tablets which
him three LSD
exam-
chemist, testified
Investigation
purchase.
perti-
Title 63
2-206 states
and found from
ined
Exhibit
State’s
tablets
nent
as
qualitative analysis the
to contain
follows:
Further, he stated
amphetamine.
an
specifically excepted
“D. Unless
or un-
generally as a cen-
substance was classified
schedule, any
less
in another
mate-
listed
Finally,
tral
stimulant.
rial, compound,
preparation
mixture or
a quantitative
stated
conduct
he did not
any quantity
which contains
of the fol-
Thereafter,
analysis
of the tablets.
having
ef-
lowing substances
a stimulant
State rested.
system:
fect on the central nervous
salts,
iso-
Amphetamine,
optical
D.,
“1.
its
Whittlesey,
For the defense
M.
Wes
mers,
optical
and salts of
isomers.”
patient
was a
testified the defendant
Department
Health
under treatment
A
statute
declares unlawful
Further, he stated
diabetes.
drugs
of narcotic
which have
*4
presently
being
was
treated with insulin
effect on the central
exciting
sys
nervous
injection. Finally,
taken by
his
tem
animal,
of a human
but
fur
or
without
fatigued very
revealed diabetics become
quantity
ther
the
that
defining
or amount
easily
prescribed ampheta-
and he often
possessed
must be
be
before
mines
symptoms.
for such
unlawful,
comes
require
does not
the state
prove
quantity
drug
pos
of the
relating
the
Defendant
her
testified
medical
*
sessed
was
accused
sufficient
history
it
of
the fact
because
an exciting
effect on the nervous
physical
she had the
condition
above tab-
drug
where
itself is within the
possession.
lets in her
Defendant stated
description
statute.
of
State v.
purchased
she
the above tablets for the
Jef
ferson,
Although
Mo.,
H37 2-206 construed people culture of the State Okla- dangerous substance homa hibit a controlled is so obvious we need not elaborate portion of the statute is quantity, it in detail. This legisla- exercise of arbitrary power as it is an unconstitutional tive bears a relationship reasonable police pow- application of the to the purpose unreasonable prohibition of the of con- er as a sale of a harmless trolled dangerous substances and for this prohibited by the act. substance could be reason this Court will not interfere with pre- enforcement of this statute as police power, general Under interpreted. viously presumption legislature authority is vested with the constitutionality favor of of this act has acts to define those or omissions which not been overcome. pre constitute criminal offense and to Lambert scribe therefor. defendant’s third State, Okl.Cr., Generally it is magistrate submitted the prelim construing legisla the reasonableness of inary hearing improperly sustained the applicable legislative tion as to the exercise following question: State’s police power, presumption is in fa my ques- say ? This “Q. What validity vor reasonableness and say tion, ? what did passing upon The courts in statutes law. powers authority police enacted under *5 “BY MR. To which we’re BOSWELL: disregard must all matters that relate to object, your going to have to Hon- act, policy may the wisdom or of the and getting pretty or. I think we’re only clearly ap declare an act void when it here, hearsay deeply and I’m into pears that it bears no real or substantial going object Jay to what police power, to the or relation the means might Stow, Cox have or Richard adopted effecting object the are mani me, pardon might have said. Further, festly unreasonable. the measure police power regula of reasonableness of a objection “BY THE will COURT: fairly, appropriate is is to its you be sustained until show that can purpose all under circumstances and not presence it is in of the Defend- the necessarily what is Hud Oil and Re best. way ant or in related to the some Company City, fining City v. of Oklahoma Defendant. 457, 169; Shops 167 Okl. v. State Dry 251, al., Board et 192 “BY make an of- Cleaners’ Okl. 135 MR. WHITLOCK: I’ll police proof the exercise of the fer then. When of power relationship bears reasonable to a please, this line I offer “If the Court legitimate purpose, may the courts not in in an ef- this witness questioning of of People Fries, 446, 42 terfere. Ill.2d 250 previous the knowl- fort to ascertain N.E.2d concerning the the edge of Officer construing language In the with the Defendant connection question, it is this opinion statute I it has to drugs; and think or LSD prohibition of sale substance sugges- first initiated the do with who is any quantity by leg classified tion of a sale. as a controlled islature sub is pursuing this why is I’m stance, prescription “And this either without with or Officers that the therapeutic value, effort to show no in an not mani little the sale suggested first In festly unreasonable. the interest of themselves entrapment, health, welfare, support the defense safety legis and public permission of request Iwhy that’s legislate beyond authority not did lature ques- line of follow this sale of such a Court prohibiting the substance by tioning. quantity. drug The threat of the 2-401, The offer “BY THE is an COURT: unconstitution- legislative shown al it can be be denied until encroachment judicial will way- powers is in some and is equal that the Defendant violative of the pro- tection under conversation clause to the related Oklahoma and United States Constitutions. Consequently, hand.” statutory prohibition for a suspended counsel’s offer defense Following denial of instant sentence offense an un- same pursue the proof, counsel did In constitutional mandate. Black he establish nor did questioning line of 941, P.2d question above exception to be within stating was settled with as fol- magistrate find the hearsay rule. We lows : sustaining state’s not err in argues that the “The section Consequently, question. to the above Legislature is unconstitutional and that merit. without proposition is constitutionally has exceeded its limited defense powers invading domain, the fourth judicial In instructions requested argues possibility his that the denial of the counsel have been 1, 2, 4 should pun- 3 and cruel and numbers bation constitutes unusual in requested note jury. given process ishment and violates due substance, charge 3, 2 and structions protection are of equal laws. We a reasonable finding beyond opinion Legislature properly the jury that the evi into admitted contraband suspen- doubt the power prohibit exercised its amphet quantity of a sufficient dence had as an given sion a sentence in a effect stimulant prescribe to have power amine inherent of its constituted central for the acts which has welfare. health, safety and public danger to prohibited as criminal.” one and numbers propositions deciding authority, we find light of the above *6 quantiative two, determined we proposition to be without merit. this establishing prima a in unnecessary be fa- dangerous counsel’s sixth a controlled defense sale of cie case of prop Therefore, urges punishment trial court exces proposition substance. repeatedly ques have held the instructions. sive. We erly refused these punishment must tion of excessivensss of submits the Additionally, counsel study by a of all facts be determined fact raise a proof is sufficient to particular in each and circumstances case. entrapment and conse upon issue of State, Okl.Cr., 494 P.2d Wofford in not in trial court erred quently, the facts and Considering the circumstances in structing upon this defense. case, coupled the instant with the fact the and do not carefully studied the imposed jury penalty statutory within support an in find sufficient evidence limits, conscientiously say we cannot entrapment. upon struction the defense imposed shocks sentence the conscience of admit upon Defendant cross-examination Considering Court. the penalty this im stating she further ted the instant offense posed, jury’s we will not disturb the assess in the involved become not forced to State, ment. Okl.Cr., See Jackson reasons, we For the above transaction. P.2d merit. be without proposition to find this judgment and sentence is affirmed. This Court commends argues appointed counsel in his court Defense professional counsel proposition legislative prohibition fifth manner in pursued which he has suspended sale and distri sentences for defendant’s ap- peal. substances, The excellent briefs of controlled bution filed in behalf
H39
statutes,
proved
olation
in
tradi-
order
to the finest
client conform
of his
repeat
to sustain a
I
what was
system jurispru-
conviction.
adversary
of our
tions
State,
my
stated in
dissent to Morris v.
dence.
Okl.Cr.,
citing
(1973),
Supreme
what
Nevada
Court stated
BUSSEY, J., concurs.
possession
reference to
of narcot-
part
in
BRETT, Judge (concurring
ics, in that court’s
in
decision Watson v.
part):
dissenting
State,
(1972):
concerning LSD. as- jury returned verdict
fact that sentence, this convic-
sessing the minimum imposes burdens additional *7 penal system might justi- have been Appellant, SPRIGGS, Gordon suspension of the fiably obviated Also, penitentiary there is noth- sentence. Appellee. Oklahoma, STATE that the sus- ing to indicate No. A - 16715. pension might oth- not be warranted under Consequently, it circumstances. will er Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. necessary penal authorities to ob- June tain, store, provide daily ad- type particular of insu- ministration in order to assure requires
lin defendant
her continued livelihood. compelled also to dissent to this
I am treatment of defendant’s second quantity of
proposition pertaining is no
narcotics There doubt considered.
my legislature intended mind but that the illegal narcot- usable possessed,
ic considered in vi- otherwise