*1 1159 only grounds when of unconstitutionali-
ty alleged. necessary is It that further bring
circumstances be shown which grounds equity
case within some clear granting
before such relief.5 The existence adequate remedy may at law likewise
preclude injunction.6 issuance of an
Appellant points out and that the
enactments of the constitution and the stat- supply remedy
utes which is his
possible remedy, has power court no statutory
to restrict a rem- constitutional
edy right. We see the merit
argument. It is obvious us injunctive
defendants not entitled to against of, physical
relief appropriation
damage to or property, seizure of real are adequately protected by
defendants
tort remedies trespass and conversion.
REVERSED, INJUNCTION DIS-
SOLVED.
IRWIN, J., WILLIAMS, V. C.
HODGES, BARNES, SIMMS and HAR-
GRAVE, JJ., concur.
LAVENDER, J., J., OPALA, C. dis-
sent.
Monty EDDINGS, Petitioner, Lee
v. Oklahoma, Respondent.
The STATE of
No. C-78-325. Appeals of Criminal of Oklahoma. 21,
March 1980. 15,
Rehearing
Sept.
Denied
1980.
Equipment Corporation
5. Boise Artesian H & C Water Co. v. Boise
6. Aircraft and
v.
Diesel
City,
Hirsch,
426,
213 U.S.
29
53
S.Ct.
L.Ed. 1796
67
91
L.Ed.
Sunray
(1947);
Oil Co. v. Cortez
See also the
District No. 37 Washita
School
Co.,
Palmer,
Oil
(1941);
Co. v.
112 P.2d
Okl.
Okl.
H61
*3
appeal.
we affirmed the certification on
E.,
of M.
I Patrolman petitioner’s victim was Highway Larry Crabtree of Oklahoma estab- Patrol. The witnesses petitioner taken his lished that had automobile, he and his and that brother’s away two run from sister and friends had leaving, their homes in Missouri. Before Jay Baker, C. Rabón Martin and C. fa- had taken three his Baker, & Salisbury, Thomas E. Baker Mar- ther’s firearms and had shortened the bar- tin, Tulsa, petitioner. shotgun. gauge rel on at least one-a .410 Gen., Cartwright, Atty. Jan Eric Michael Turnpike the Turner at getting Before to Jackson, Gen., respondent. Atty. Asst. group picked up a hitch- gate, the Tulsa a sta- They stopped hiker. at service OPINION refreshments, shop for and tion/coffee BRETT, Judge. was they leaving, petitioner, were who Monty driving, briefly lost of the car be- Eddings Lee an Oklaho- control murdered was Highway April dropped cigarette his and ma Patrol Officer on cause he had time, was The ear went over a curb trying 1977. Because he to find it. down ditch before moved have him certified stand and into bar control, regained pulled granted trial as an adult. The was but motion to- hearing, highway a and and continued District Court after back onto having A man after twice City. light ward Oklahoma who saw asked to have a Crabtree, off, officer, told Patrolman incident turned told an “Now I have shop, the coffee the officer said he you people, get shot one of I’ll you too check would on the matter. you if light don’t turn this out.” driving one runaways along, As were II passengers in the back seat said there police a petition- car behind them. The permitted While the asks said, fucking cop “If the I’ll er harrasses me plea contendere, withdraw of nolo all passengers him.” The shoot treated assignments of his relate of error in one joke; remark as when the officer way imposition or another to the light on his red and the turned his case. first road, pulled off the he took sawed-off punish- that it would be cruel unusual shotgun from the floor the car load- impose ment the death on a ed it. When Patrolman Crabtree was about Next, juvenile. he contends that his motion away, feet six stuck the shot- particulars to strike the bill of regarding out gun the window and fired. Immediate- sustained, the sentence should ly away. he drove the statutory aggravating that none of cir- beyond cumstances were established rea- Evidence to the con- court doubt, sonable and that
cerning juvenile extensive outweighed by factors in his case were product record in bro- Missouri. of a *5 home, assignment factors. In third ken he was shuffled back forth and error, the claims that the between his house State mother’s and his father’s house, suppressed evidence which he could have spent “group and also some time in used operated aggravating homes” the to counter one of the by State of Missouri. 1975, petition November, alleged particu- A in bill of was filed circumstances And, finally, says when the him lars. he he should have charging burglary investigator with four counts in been the the second services of degree tampering psychiatrist expense. and with a and a at For motor vehicle. State convenience, adjudicated delinquent He was a will and made sake of we discuss the petitioner’s arguments September, ward the court. In a out of order. supplementary petition alleging was filed harm; with bodily
assault the intent to do A and in that same petition month another One of the circumstances charged burglary degree in second and by found District was that the stealing. addition, In charge there was a purpose murder committed “for tampering According with mail boxes. arrest avoiding preventing a lawful testimony, steadily conduct prosecution.” O.S.Supp.1978, Title 21 par- worsened until he returned to his The that 701.12. claims § March, 1977, custody. ents’ In the petition- knew, tell, but of a witness State failed to probation by running away er violated his attacking who could have aided him in home. He from was found in Oklahoma particular This circumstance. witness returned and to Missouri. although the traf- would have testified that
There was a stop also statements fic was made because of misdemean- by made the petitioner by leaving both before and or committed in station, after he was into he custody. turnpike taken As service Patrolman away murder, offense; drove from the scene of the actually Crabtree did not see he said he cop would rather have killed a he heard merely of it from undisclosed go Thus, than back he petitioner argues, to where lived. At one witness. point jail, right after he taken he had been officer not have the to make a did officers, I got particular ag- said two “If loose I would warrantless arrest. And this you all, shoot And at time not have gravating too.” another circumstance would law, brought but we have dealt with this process the witness had been found instance, See, Bills question past. in for
testify.
(1978),
State, Okl.Cr.,
1166
1,
levy
Gault,
that it
unusual to
87 asserts
would be
Application of
also
See
juvenile,
a
it has
on
since
never
1428,
punishment
There
L.Ed.2d
over-
juve-
done. But the
not all
before been
always a realization that
when he was certified to
the fact that
and the Oklahoma
looks
helped,
could be
niles
was certified to be
trial as an adult he
beginning
stand
provided from
Legislature
juveniles
punished as
adult.
certain
that under
circumstances
regular criminal
prosecuted
be
in a
could
the youngest
that
asserts
4424;
1910,
and
Rev. Laws
proceeding.
§
in Oklahoma was 18
person ever executed
ch.
now
see Laws
O.S.
§
And he cites
his crime.
when he committed
juve-
1112.1
of a
Supp.1978,
Certification
150,
Ill A remaining assignment of error raised asserts that by is that trial court murder of Patrolman was no more Crabtree imposing erred in sentence in heinous, cruel every atrocious and than arguments ease. His against are directed aggravating murder. The circumstance in by the Bill of Particulars filed State and especial the statute is for murders that are court; ruling of the treatment heinous, cruel, ly atrocious and and obvious assignment review calls for a full of the ly Legislature must have intended to punishment. regarding evidence killings reach which are “out of the ordi For that reason we have our combined dis- nary.” assignment of this cussion statuto- Dixon, (Fla.1973), In State v. 283 So.2d rily punishment. required review of the Supreme the Florida Court considered the The Bill of Particulars filed the State meaning question: phrase alleged in this case three of the meaning feel of such specified circumstances O.S.Supp. “[W]e 1978, 701.12: terms is a knowledge, matter of common * ordinary so that an man would not have “especially That the murder hei-
nous, atrocious, cruel”; guess intended. It is what was our * interpretation that heinous means ex- That murder was “committed for evil; tremely purpose preventing shockingly wicked or avoiding or prosecution.” lawful arrest or outrageously atrocious means wicked and * vile; and, designed means cruel That would “constitute a *9 continuing society.” pain threat high degree inflict a with utter
1168 to, of, enjoyment testimony regarding petitioner’s even man-
indifference ner, killing What is intended suffering of others. we believe that this was “de- capital crimes are those high degree pain included signed to inflict a capi- commission of the the actual where indifference to . the suffer- utter accompanied by such addi- felony was tal Dixon, supra. v. ing of others.” State apart from acts as to set the crime tional We, trial court’s accordingly, uphold the con- capital felonies-the the norm of aggravating circum- finding of the first which is un- pitiless crime scienceless alleged stance the State. victim.” necessarily to the torturous State, 322 908 also Tedder v. So.2d See B (Fla.1975). allega regard With to the second position-in the Bill of
The State’s tion, that the petitioner claims Bill Particulars, sentencing hearing because it fatally Particulars was defective identity of the victim appeal-is on that the killing specify was the offense for which in which failed to manner especially ar being stopped. done make this murder abhor was He also makes it stop rent. A review of gues, previously, as noted thought he clear that Patrolman Crabtree Patrolman not a lawful arrest because making ordinary stop. an traffic the incident at the Crabtree did not see passengers petition in the addition to station. The counters that service car, Joe Inman Highway er’s Patrol Officer rear petitioner’s automobile had no stop taking place. saw the traffic He was fenders, 12- in violation of O.S. turnpike going opposite direction on 405(j), could and that Patrolman Crabtree long enough to stopped in the median for that stopping have been signal Patrolman to meet him Crabtree State, Therefore, im says the it is reason. cup for a of coffee. From observation not the officer saw the material whether or situation, nothing he concluded earlier event. Patrol ordinary happening; out of the ar- persuaded by We are not the State’s showing signs no man Crabtree “was entirely specula- which is gument, built anything being wrong.” Patrolman Inman might tion as to what Patrolman Crabtree away drove when he Patrolman Crab- saw thinking at the time. But nei- have been walk get tree out of his car and toward ther do we find merit in petitioner’s car. argument, for the same reason. officer Law vital perform enforcement officers illegal arrest making could have been society, highway patrol function in our see; based on a misdemeanor he did not just give officers do much more than traffic admits, stop was not They give tickets. aid to travelers dis while driv- perhaps made for several miles: tress, they render assistance in time of nat the officer ob- behind the ural disaster. There are times when an served some other violation. expects danger: recognizes officer way have no point is that we nature of the situation in which he has been who could testi- knowing. person placed prepares and he for it. But Patrol making stop is fy to the reasons for danger. prepared man Crabtree was not Crabtree, We and he is dead. Patrolman Indeed, expect he had no reason to it. We as the willing presume, are not killing peace believe that this of a officer in do, was, acting the officer was asks us to performance of his duties State, 90 Okl.Cr. “extremely illegally. Stout words of the Florida evil,” (1950); Payne “shockingly wicked” and and “outra P.2d geously from the wicked and vile.” And P.2d Florida, Georgia performance duties is in 3. The statutes of Texas and all officer in the of his provide killing of a law enforcement itself an circumstance.
H69 important It private practice to realize that the and the sociologist on the faculty focus of this circumstance is on at Oral Roberts University—inter- the state of viewed petitioner mind the murderer rather before the certifica- proceedings. than the officer. It is tion testimony the murderer who Their at the instant purpose avoiding pre sentencing hearing must have the “of was substantial- ly the venting same as that prosecution.” lawful arrest or at the certifica- 701.12, hearing. tion supra. Section The trial court clear
ly making finding: realized this when its On the basis of the tests he had adminis- any question Court finds without “[T]he petitioner tered and his conversations from the that this Defendant youth, with the the State psychologist diag- did not want go back to the authorities nosed the sociopathic as a Missouri, or be returned to his father anti-social personality. At the certification
or mother. atOr least to be returned to hearing, the doctor said that two states— person who was at that time charged California Maryland programs —had supervision. his And there isn’t treating sociopathic personalities, but that doubt in the Court’s mind but that be- there was no way to be certain whether the yond a reasonable doubt crime was treatment had an effect or people whether particular committed just time to grew out of their sociopathy. He ad- prosecution.” avoid mitted that some people perhaps 30%—do — grow they get older, seem to out of it as We finding. affirm the trial court’s It he said at the sentencing hearing that this does not why patrolman matter stopped principally limited type con-artist car; why what matters is persons violently aggressive rather than behaved did. And the facts of the persons. (And he specific referred to a fully support case the conclusion that he study in which nine out of 255 anti-social shot Patrolman Crabtree being to avoid re- subjects were considered to have been suc- turned to Missouri. cessfully treated.) The doctor also stated that he found no indications of defective C reasoning ability or mental illness. We also finding by affirm the third sociologist from Oral Roberts Univer- the trial court. The had an ex sity experience had extensive in the field of juvenile Missouri, tensive record in involv criminal law. He diagnosed peti- also against persons crimes as well as tioner as an personality, anti-social and he against addition, property. while in cus talked about the factors in the tody after shooting, he made threats life development. which had led to this against the highway patrol lives of other believed that the be helped could troopers. again, finding Here the court’s with therapy through problems to work justified presented the facts it. place and take a society, given useful length sufficient of time. D We question come now to the diagnosis of an anti-social disorder sentencing factors. At the repeated by hear was psychiatrist private ing, doctor, four practice. too, witnesses: This peti- believed the and, A social worker treated, from Missouri as noted tioner could be it but estimated above, expert three years witnesses. The social would take 15 to 20 of intensive ther- extensively worker testified concerning apy (although years he had said three at the petitioner’s past family and his situation. hearing). certification He believed that at psychologist State petitioner pulled testified the time the trigger petitioner was admitted to Eastern was disassociating: opinion peti- in his Hospital for observation and examination tioner shooting High- was not an Oklahoma during proceedings. Officer, the certification way Patrol killing but was other two psychiatrist witnesses—the in specter stepfather, police- of his awas *11 Nevertheless, That the of was not doctor 1. sentence death the
inman Missouri.
passion,
the difference
imposed
knew
“under the influence
thought
wrong
arbitrary
and
or
other
factor.”
right
prejudice,
any
between
—the
applied
him.
the rules
to
C,
think
just
701.13,¶
did
This
a notori-
not
1.
was
Section
hand,
did
be-
the doctor
not
the other
On
killing. The record indicates that
ous
again if the
would kill
lieve
of the
resident
Patrolman Crabtree
arose.
opportunity ever
and,
doubt,
feeling
county
public
no
transcripts
completely
high. But the
are
to the District
closing
In his
that re-
of remarks
devoid
kinds
argument to this
his brief and
and in
Court
bias,
judge
veal
and we are sure that
attorney urged sev-
petitioner’s
However,
gave
petitioner a fair and
in this case
circumstances.
eral
petition-
impartial hearing.
one—the
the trial court found
earlier, the District
youth.
er’s
As stated
support the
2. That the evidence does
great weight
giv-
had been
Court indicated
finding
statutory aggravating
judge’s
but, nevertheless,
to
found it
en
this factor
as enumerated
Section
circumstances
aggravating cir-
could not overbalance the
holding should
The basis for this
701.12.
too,We,
giv-
the case.
have
cumstances of
body
opinion.
of this
clear from the
petitioner’s
en serious consideration to
is not
That
the sentence
death
3.
youth. But the
circumstances
pen-
disproportionate
or
to
excessive
serious;
we, too,
very
in this
are
and
case
cases, considering
imposed in
alty
similar
petitioner’s youth
to
that
have
conclude
This
both the crime and
defendant.
outweigh
cannot
them.
too,
in our
holding,
ample support
finds
petitioner also
his
opinion.
mental
at the time of the murder. He
state
701.13, E, pro-
¶
O.S.Supp.1978,
Title 21
§
family
history
saying
stresses his
vides:
psychological and
suffering from severe
court
include in
decision a
“The
shall
its
disorders,
killing
emotional
and that
to
which it
reference
those similar cases
actuality
product
was in
inevitable
into
In
its
took
consideration.
addition
way
is
he was
There
no doubt
raised.
errors,
authority regarding
correction
the petitioner
personality
that
has a
disor
court,
regard
to review of death
tends
show
der. But all
evidence
sentences, shall be authorized to:
right
that he
between
knew
difference
wrong
pulled
trig
death;
at the time he
“1. Affirm the sentence of
ger,
respon
and that is
test of criminal
and remand
“2. Set
sentence aside
sibility in this State. Gonzales v.
sentence
the case for modification of the
P.2d 312
For
same
imprisonment for life.”
reason,
family
history
This conviction wherein
death
explaining why
useful in
he behaved the
places
was assessed
this Court in the same
did,
way he
but it
not
does
excuse
position
Supreme
confronted
behavior.
Shaw,
Carolina in
South
(S.C.1979),
S.E.2d
wherein
IV
Court stated:
ruling
as
addition to
on the
“We have
the death sentences
compared
raised,
signments of error
are
O.S.
sen-
imposed upon appellants with the
701.13, C,¶
Supp.1978,
requires this Court
imposed
prior capital
tences
in all
cases
to make three
determinations. We
under
current
tried
examined the record in this case and have
satisfied
there are
statutes
argu
careful consideration
counsel,
propor-
against
no similar cases
which the
ments
both written in the briefs
tionality
upon
we
argument,
imposed
at oral
of the sentences
appellants
hold:
can be measured.
compare
inability
“The
of this Court to
For the reasons and in accordance with
cases
this case with
other similar
the authorities
by my
cited
colleague J.
however,
appel- Brett,
require,
I
does
am of the opinion that
judg-
Any system
lants’ sentences be set aside.
ment and sentence should be
Ap-
affirmed.
requires
comparison
of review that
pellant’s contention that
sup-
the State
prior
each
with all
cases must
case
similar
pressed evidence critical
defense in
will be a first
beginning.
have a
There
Brady Maryland,
violation of
capital
type
category
case for each
(1963),
1. being except highways, thrown on windshield of a operating follow- animal- on the vehicles, equipped thereby obscuring with fenders drawn vehicle and the vision attached wheels shall have over the rearmost through of the driver of said the windshield directly apron provisions thereto a rubber or fabric this subsection vehicle. The wheels, hanging moving apply rear of perpendicular rearmost shall not to a farm tractor over body highway system speed of the from the vehicle. less than state the twenty (20) apron per Said shall be of such a size as to miles hour.” prevent spray or other bulk sub-