*1 “Guilty” charged in plea If as the Infor- FRENCH, James D. Error, Plaintiff Duty punishment. mation : on court to fix v. mitigation aggravation Evidence of Oklahoma, The STATE of prose- Defend admissible. Recommendation of ant in Error. cutor, any, binding upon if the Court. No. A-13748. Right pronouncement for time before the judgment and sentence. Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. having any questions After and all an- June 1966. Court, swered defendant waives Rehearing July 27, Denied 1966. plead, time which to and all the rights explained, other advises the response inquiry
promises or threats have made
defendant, statutory punish- and that the prescribed
ment is understood.
Whereupon, plea defendant enters
“Guilty” Information, charged in the
specifically pro- waives time for Sentence, Judgment
nouncement of requests pass the Court to sentence
now, which is done in accordance with
law. Open day
Done in Court this 14th
April, 1965. Bobby Humphries
/s/ Jack ” Defendant
The above document was witnessed and
certified, and filed in District Court of
Garvin Oklahoma. itself, speaks
This for and as this record repeatedly held,
Court has as in the con- Okl.Cr.,
trolling Huggins case of
388 P.2d 341: affirmatively shows the record
“Where
that an accused knew and understood competently and in- to counsel and entered
telligently right and waived this plea guilty, knowledge of with full consequences plea, of such the re-
quirements Amend- of the Fourteenth
ment of the of the United Constitution provisions making obligatory the
States Amendment of the Sixth Constitu- upon
tion the states of the United States appli- fully complied
have been Corpus
cation Habeas bewill denied.” denied.
Writ
BRETT, BUSSEY, J., J., and P. concur.
172: Martin, McAlester, plain- B.
tiff in error. Nesbitt, Atty. R. Gen. of
Charles Okla- homa, Owens, Gen., Atty. Charles L. Asst. for defendant in error. are of Presiding-Judge. that this
BUSSEY, assign- ment of error -iswithout merit and that the French, hereinafter referred upon Ward and relied French cases defendant, convicted the District clearly, distinguishable defendant are *3 crime Pittsburg for the Court of in the facts the instant case. In Ward the judgment and of Murder and the charged the case defendant was with manu- death, punishment a fixing at sentence his facturing and, intoxicating liquor over ob- perfected this timely appeal, to has jection presence jury, and in the the he undisputed es- evidence Court. the Since required put was that to on coat was French, serv- tablishes that while whiskey question. found in near the still imprisonment ing life a sentence of County Attorney The per- in that case was cellmate, murder, strangled his crime of jury mitted to to the “The remark coat- death, Shelton, morn- Eddie to Lee found the still fits the defendant like the only 17, 1961, ing we will recite October paper on the This Court held wall.” this portion record relevant to that n clearly be to violative of the defendant’s urged-by de- error assignments five give constitutional not to incriminat- . appeal. fendant on ing, against evidence himself. In the French case this conviction Court reversed-the and that first contends The defendant ground portion sentence on the that a when rights were violated constitutional his jury brought into saw the defendant prison clothed in he forced to trial courtroom cuffed and with his hands his guards. by armed He garb and surrounded belt, by- arms bound and this a leather vio- .argues that: portion O.S.1961, lated that 22 15 § “The Constitution State of Okla- provides that “in no shall he be event tried (Art. 2], 21) 21 and homa- Sec. [art. before in while chains shackles.” or '5 Amendment to Constitution of the allege presence Defendant does not States, prohibit any substance, in United simply shackles, urges chains or but this person being compelled criminal that that he was the fact dressed against case be to a witness himself. prison accompanied by guards clothing and Here, very presence of this defend- forcing the constituted act of defendant ant, prison garb, clothed in the tell-tale dangerous give testimony to char- of.his guards, being and armed surrounded . acter. life, only tried for can. be his construed as appear In the instant case it does that forcing 'give testimony’ to this defendant requested the defendant his counsel ever dangerous as his and vile char- permitted appear in that be he .civilian acter, .spirit and violated of the con- Moreover, during clothes his since trial. provisions stitutional above stated. the homicide in the State Peniten- occurred STATE, 362; Okl.Cr., See 27 WARD tiary where both the defendant 498; Okl.Cr., 228 P. sentences, FRENCH v. it serving would deceased were' present 501; impossible all the 377 have been P.2d competent surrounding said facts homicide 22 OSA, provides Title Sec. 15 consideration, without to the their jury'for ‘No compelled can be in a crim- revealing was a convict. that the defendant inal against action to be a witness him- fact took witness defendant ** * self ’. behalf, freely admitted the stand in own ¿laying part court, of his holding of bizarre details of this defendant chief, testimony in minute jurors before the actual trial described for two -days, easily recognized prison the facts and circumstances surround- garb detail Shelton, ing slaying Eddie Lee guards, surrounded armed can n only .assignment this equal forcing be. renders untenable considered to the n ‘testimony’.” this of error. 174 presence jury. The Clerk and second contention
The defendant’s present: refusing erred in other officials of the court court is that the trial West, physician and Pro Dr. L. allow Comes now the Mr. Martin: University of Psychiatry -at the fessor of appointed through his court coun- School, appear Medical Oklahoma grant a mis- sel and moves court findings relating de to the testify to his reasons: following trial for the oc sanity the time the homicide fendant’s (1) 7th at the hour of On June curred, From the record Curiae. as Amicus o’clock there was aired over P.M. Channel had followed appears Dr. it West TV, widely received which channel interest scientific closely had a case Pittsburg County, this defendant *4 by was contacted he in it and that when might has reason to have been believe Martin, defend for the counsel Mr. James by jury. seen one or more members of this ant, agreed examine the defendant to he pictures Certain of the defendant James present his find charge if he could without showing the D. D. French said James than Court rather ings Friend of the as a Pittsburg French in the of courthouse urges that partisan Defendant as a witness. name, by identified and as de- to allow Dr. trial court refused when the in fendant the case of State of Oklahoma Curiae, and it be testify Amicus toWest French, being at the time vs. D. he expert necessary testi to offer his came manacled, handcuffed, chained and witness, such rul mony of a defense as that sequence many in at one time the of the testi jury give to Dr. West’s ing the caused film, closeup feet of of his wrists and credibility than that to weight and mony less showing arms exhibited the chains was here observe it entitled. We which was around his waist which chains were at- only qualified psy not the Dr. West completely tached to handcuffs mana- Indeed, at trial. who testified the chiatrist cling the said French. who had ex witnesses there were several (2) For reasons defendant and amined and observed grounds that at time the same over Chan- agreement findings not in were whose Station, nel 9 TV is in Pitts- aired In Dare Okl. of West. those Dr. burg County as Channel 3 on Cable Cr., we stated: 378 P.2d system pictures showing TV the same testimony experts is not con- “The similarly duly defendant manacled I amas capacity mental the issue of clusive on informed, all of which viola- constitutes a in no distinction makes since law Legal tion of the Canon of Ethics con- expert testi- weighing between evidence cerning photography in and around a character.” mony and evidence of other courtroom, and for the further reason trial court that the showing of this defendant so mana- refusing to allow Dr. did not err in West very probably cled can antagonize any of testify he had been as Amicus Curiae when jurors who could have seen or heard unilaterally by for the de- selected counsel pictures about said and would influence testify fense, allowed him to but that to have thinking jury prevent given his would have as Amicus Curiae receiving a fair trial. testimony weight credibility than more you anything say, Court: Have it was entitled receive. Carman ? assignment error next Defendant’s Mr. Carman: Comes now Edwin Car- J. ap- following proceedings arises out of the man, County Attorney Pittsburg pearing pages 142-146 of casemade: County and states that at all times dur- proceedings held following ing sequence were “The alleged in events 8, 1965, the Cham- 8:40 in mis-trial, A.M. counsel’s motion for de- June Bell, Judge bers Robert out being fendant was conducted chained J. things, conformity in other the motion for manacled and handled etc mistrial is type procedure showing any denied. with the rules of There prejudice. any. reversal of a I don’t of chase set down think there was Kirksey previous jury Nix Honorable now is room. permitted separate members of Crimi- It was and other consent Appeals time prisoners nal at that of counsel. We all know that type of this defendant are all of alleges the Hon- The state further necessity brought to the courthouse with di- specifically Robert Bell had orable J. They safely handcuffs on. couldn’t be proceed prison rected that officials way. peni- handled other This is a conformity set with the rules heretofore tentiary I town. don’t know whether admon- down said court and had also people watch station or not. Channel pictures in- ished that there be no taken does come unless a is on my knowledge side courtroom and to change Cable have to sequence pictures none of the channel 3. So that will be all.” motion taken inside the in the were so courtroom of the Honorable Robert Defendant contends that the trial court’s ruling refusing grant Bell. con- mis-trial *5 argues stitutes reversible He that error. Court: Well record shows all of that. jurors probably saw the film and as- This case has been on TV since 1961 and suming they that saw the defendant filmed this is third trial. There have been chains amounted to a violation 22of O.S. pictures no taken in the courtroom providing: §15, the same photographers admonished not were any. to take I 8. I don’t saw Channel person compelled in criminal “No can be say there his wasn’t a chain around himself; nor against action to be witness waist, Leaving impress it but didn’t me. public charged with a of- can a custody the courthouse French was in subjected fense before conviction to be plain weapons clothesmen. No showed. necessary any more restraint than is Recently pictures on were Channel 8 charge, for his detention to answer prison shown of French in I cell. and in no event shall he be tried before a say high can’t whether on death row. or jury in chains shackles.” while or yesterday presence in the coun- On of his as are of the that this presence and in sel signment Title of error is without merit. photographer pictures French if asked 22, provides: 853 O.S. § could be taken the defendant out of courtroom as he left the court- jurors try an indictment “The sworn to I they them could room. admonished information, may, any before or time pictures against not take the the will of jury, cause to the the submission of the jury the defendant. In each instance the court, permit- of the be in the discretion kept jury been has sent out and kept charge separate, *to or to ted be room until after for the French did leave proper must officers. The officers prison. gave taking French assent to his keep jurors together until be sworn pictures. any of the taken If were about court, meeting next to suffer express the courthouse it was with his speak communicate person to to or you consent. remember that Mr. Do them, themselves, nor do so ? Martin trial, any subject connected with the judge Martin: I remember the tell- at the next them into court to return ing him taken be taken with would meeting officer or officers Such thereof. his consent. sworn, duly it not having once necessary at each that be resworn just Court: It was as he entered the wit- adjournment. An admonition reason, among recess or ness room door. For 176 adoption by jury approved be suf- this and the shall Court of the test officer
to the
States,
469,
in Davis v.
160 U.S.
16
United
ficient.”
353,
373,
499,
40
S.Ct.
and 165 U.S.
L.Ed.
purportedly
prejudicial error
375,
360, 362,
750,
17
41
S.Ct.
L.Ed.
during
final sub-
a recess before
occurred
being:
same
jury
and counsel
case
mission
acquiesced
agreed to
had
for defense
‘insanity,’
term
“The
as used in
de-
separate.
well
The rule is
jury to
allow
fense,
perverted
means
such
and de-
separation
jury for a
that the
settled
ranged condition of
mental and
moral
overnight
not
time or
where
period of
short
person incapable
faculties as
render a
counsel,
affi-
or sworn
objected to
distinguishing
right
between
testimony
new trial
on motion for
or
davits
wrong, or unconscious
the time
not
will
prejudiced,
committing,
nature
act he is
Territory, 1
Bilton v.
vitiate a verdict.
where,
it,
though conscious of
and able
State,
163;
566,
v.
99 P.
Nowabbi
Okl.Cr.
distinguish
wrong,
between
868;
State,
158,
Cox v.
237 P.
31 Okl.Cr.
wrong, yet
know that
the act is
State,
545;
91
Okl.Cr.,
Fry
P.2d
283
v.
governing
mean the
which I
will—
643;
State,
326, 218
Martin v.
P.2d
Okl.Cr.
power of his mind—has been otherwise
534;
v.
P.2d
Hobson
92 Okl.Cr.
completely destroyed
voluntarily
than
so
695;
Okl.Cr.,
Hayes
State,
P.2d
it,
subject
his actions are
but
Okl.Cr.,
177 involuntary subjection power alleged of- the time fendant you superiors.” must fense, you instructed are benefit of the defendant give O.S.1961, provides: 21 154 Title § Verdict, your state doubt so prohibit- commit propensity “A morbid furnished will be proper form of same existing ed acts the mind of a in- heretofore you, in other words incapable who is shown have structed, find and believe you must knowing wrongfulness of such doubt beyond reasonable the evidence acts, prosecution no defense to a forms of the commission at the time therefor.” that the alleged offense amply given the court instructions able'to distin- he was to the extent sane responsibility covered the of criminal issue and to wrong guish between language to and were couched in similar nature and understand know approved by this Court Dare those probable committing and the act he was State, Okl.Cr., supra; 332 Revard v. thereof, you for in order consequences In ac- P.2d cited therein. cases sane.” find the defendant this prior cordance with the decisions of in accord and 8 were No. 7 Instructions Court, as- we are of the that this instruction. clarified this signment merit and of error without provides: 152 Title O.S. § position Dare v. reiterate our stated in committing capable of persons “All are State, supra, that crimes, belonging to except those * * * unwilling, this “We following classes: time, to abandon the rule so well-estab- age of seven under 1. Children jurisdiction, having found lished years. justify nothing better that would age seven change. over the 2. Children age fourteen
years, but under the Rules, M’Naghten a test proof that at the (cid:127) years, in the absence of responsibility, remain criminal will neglect act or committing the time of jurisdiction in this until the Court law its them, against knew charged conscientiously Appeals can Criminal wrongfulness. rules, adopt taking into consideration *7 legal both and medical and advances 3. Idiots. relating of to criminal statutes Oklahoma Lunatics, persons, and all 4. insane responsibility, will better serve mind, per- persons including of unsound jus- orderly administration of criminal deprived temporarily partially of sons or tice.” reason, upon proof that at the time of us the record leads Our examination of charged against them committing the act the defendant to the conclusion incapable its knozving were of ably fairly peers, of tried before his wrongfulness, ours) (emphasis represented by competent and that counsel act, committed the or 5. Persons who meticulously protected his judge the trial an charged, under made the omission rights. The verdict of constitutional ignorance of fact which dis- or mistake overwhelming supported jury is igno- proves any intent. But criminal guilt the de- proof of the defendant’s of does not excuse from rance of the law premeditated of Eddie murder liberate punishment for its violation. Shelton, being error of Lee and there the act 6. Persons who committed in inter- justify sufficient to this Court law being thereof. charged without conscious jury, fering with the verdict of act, appealed is judgment or and sentence committed the 7. Persons who affirmed. charged, under made the omission while Court. appearances before this appointed for the exe- several originally date discharged obligation Having thus his D. French
cution of James French, ful- D. said appeal, or- toward the pending this it is passed having James Rules of filling obligations under the his by this Court dered, and decreed adjudged Ethics, and the Constitutions the Dis- Professional of judgment sentence United of Oklahoma Pittsburg County, be carried State trict Court hereby States; re- Martin is the defendant Mr. the electrocution out James duty or obligation, lieved of the Warden D. French James D. Oklahoma, represent McAlester, authority the said Penitentiary State James 10, French. Wednesday, August 1966. an to enter or- court is directed The trial error, re- requested by plaintiff in der as BRETT, JJ., NIX, concur. any further lieving Martin of Mr. James represent authority duty, obligation, RE-PIEARING ON any further in D. French said James BUSSEY, Presiding Judge. in proceedings arising of his conviction out Pittsburg the District Court 1966, day June, 8th this Court On the It is so ordered. Oklahoma. opinion affirming delivered an the convic- fixing tion of French and D. Re-Hearing denied. Petition for James Thereafter, date of execution. on the 17th issue of this Court directed to Clerk day June, 1966, Martin, at- mandate forthwith. torney error, plaintiff in filed a Peti- Re-Hearing asserting tion for the same er- complained original petition
rors error, support brief in This thereof. carefully assignments considered the petition
of error contended in the filed for error, brief, plaintiff and the argument support oral thereof before HOLSONBAKE, Error, R. Plaintiff rendering 8, this decision on said 1966. June carefully have re-considered the as- Oklahoma, Defendant The STATE cited, assignments of error and authorities i n Error. that the Petition for No. A-13769. Re-Hearing should be denied. Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. plaintiff hereWe take note that the June 1966. error, French, corresponded has with the trial court and with the Clerk of requesting Court-Ap- this Court
pointed Attorney be relieved of further ob-
ligation, duty, authority represent pro- said French in attorney.
ceedings as having record,
After reviewed the trial
briefs, argument, and oral we are of the ably repre- Martin plaintiff sented 'the in error the.
court, and diligent perfecting
appeal therefrom; duty discharged fidelity toward in his