*1 1331 (Okl.Cr.1985), P.2d relatively time, Glass v. 701 765 over period a short of in rape, held counts of the Court that several apрroximately location, the same and robbery with intent to sodomy, and assault proof as to eaсh overlaps transaction so properly joined for when plan. evidence a common scheme or separate gave rise the incidents which Shearer, Accord United States v. 606 charges the occurred within few blocks of 819, (8th Cir.1979) F.2d 820 (construing each other on the same street within a 8(a), Rule Crim.Proc.). Fed.Rulеs of case, day span. three time In each similarity Mere pro- of does offenses vaginal sex dеfendant demanded oral and adequate vide an joinder basis for under victim, attempted from his forced or our statute. Accord Drew v. United give up jewelry force the victims to States, 331 (D.C.Cir.1964). F.2d 85 possessions, and the vic- valuable accosted Id. at 768. night. tims In at defendant case, In proof this as to each transac- weapon used same in last inci- two tion clearly “overlap does not so as to determining In joinder dents. whether the evidence a plan.” common or scheme The proper, this Court stated: joinder оf two such unrelated offenses 436, joinder Section of defend- Under should be considered to abe violation of permitted ants in one information is process due provisions under the of Section “if they pаrtici- are to have only 7 of II Article of the Oklahoma Constitu- pated in the act or transaction or in same I, therefore, tion. would reverse re- or of acts transactions same series mand for new trials with instructions to constituting an offense or offenses.” It of ato Minor Child. follows, em- analysis therefore under thе Dodson, by Judge ployed Brett applies
this same standard Thus, joinder sepa- as
offenses well. permitted is if
rately punishable offenses separate offenses аrise out of one transaction, part
criminal act or or are or
a series criminal acts transactions.
Accord Johnson v. (Okl.Cr.1982)(dicta). 876 FREEMAN, Linda case, Turning it to the facts of the charged clear that all of offenses did transaction; a single not arise out of however, they did occur a series of No. F-84-310. never transactions. We have had occa- intepret phrase sion to “series of Court of
criminal acts or transactions” this con- statute, construing text. so obligated employ
are the common and meaning
ordinary statutory term. Cartwright Georgia rel.
See State ex.
Pacific, Dictionary de- College
The American things, “series” “a
fines as number
events, ranged occurring spa- etc. succession;
tial, temporal, or other (Emphasis at add-
sequence.” Id.
ed). Accordingly, joinder offenses is joined so refer
proper where the counts occurring of offenses type
to the *2 County Rapé
Cherokee
District Court of
Degree,
Sodomy,
the First
Forcible
also, 721 P.2d
Injury to a Minor Child. She received sеn-
years’,
years’,
tences of fifteen
fifteen
imprisonment,
years’
respectively,
ten
to be
conсurrently.
served
The facts are as set forth in Freeman v.
State,
She first asserts as error the all counts in one information and in one trial. We addressed this assignment Freeman, supra. For the reasons stated therein, we find it is meritless. Appellant assigns next as error by prosecutor during comments made closing argument. Defense counsel did not any comments now Therefore, have constituted misconduct. all but fundamental error wаs waived. Langdell (Okl.Cr. 1982). We have reviewed the comments grossly and find none improper. Ellis v. (Okl.Cr.1982). Finally, appellant complains her sen tences are excessive under the facts and argues circumstances оf the case. She that since her role in the crimes were sec ondary, she should receive reduсed sen tences. We note that her sentences are substantially from reduced those of her codefendant. He received sentences of for ty years’ imprisonment for the convic twenty years’ tiоn and on each of the other convictions.
All of the crimes were violent crimes against They the viсtim. occurred while appellant was entrusted with the care of the minor. We do not find the sentencеs so E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defend- excessive as to shock the conscience of the er, Norman, appellant. for Court, and therefore decline modify them. Clark v. (Okl. Turpén, Gen., Michael C. Atty. Mary Wil- Cr.1984) liаms, Gen., Atty. Asst. City, Oklahoma for appellee. Finding warranting no error reversal or modification, judgments and sentences are
OPINION AFFIRMED. BUSSEY, Judge: PARKS, P.J., dissents. together
Linda Freeman was convicted husband, Freeman, with her BRETT, J., Murrell concurs.
PARKS, Prеsiding dissenting: Judge, their combined effect prejudicial was so adversely affect fundamental respeсtfully I must dissent for rea- impartiality proceed- fairness and my dissent Freeman v. sons ings and mandate a new trial. Sеe Reeves P.2d 113 in this case *3 1979). beyond proper went well bounds I Accordingly, would reverse and remand he rеpeatedly conduct when trials, for new with instructions on appellant had lied the witness stand. to Minor Child. (Tr. 573-5). uniformly This Court con- has State, demned comments. such Fulks v. (Okl.Cr.1971); Robertson v. (Okl.Cr.1974); Dupree (Okl.Cr.1973);
v. (Okl.Cr.1981); v.
Cobbs Capps
1984). WALTERS, Sr., James Owen cases, upheld
In some of these grounds on the that the defend- convictions ant had the remarks failed either fair comments on evidence Fulks, prejudice insuffiсient existed. No. M-84-313.
Robertson, However, Capps, Supra. oth- Court of despite er been cases have reversed Dupree, objection. lack sufficient 1986. Cobbs, Supra. example, Dupree, For Rehеaring Aug. 13, Denied Bussey Judge quoted approval with following language from Ray v. (Okl.Cr.1973): argument highly improper
This stopped by
and should hаve been judge jury and the advised to dis- Although counsel,
regard closing it.
argument may upon the evi- comment logical
dence in the case and inferences
therefrom, he may inject personal his beliefs, may speculate
opinions or nor he proceedings,
as to future criminal nor per- that witnesses have committed
state judgment perjury.
jury absent
tions, apparent it is that the with rules
either unfamiliar
Court, violating deliberately or he is those gain prosecutori- an
rules order unfair instance, I advantage.
al In either would Cobbs, reasoning
apply this Court’s page
wherein at we stated:
Although defense counsel failed ob- prose-
ject to the numerous instances of misconduct,
cutorial we conclude that