*1 567 757, (Okl.Cr.1984). inference drawn from P.2d assign- reasonable 759 probative is, therefore, the same value ment of evidence has without merit. State, testimony. v. 674 direct Dodson 57, (Okl.Cr.1984). It was for the P.2d 58 BRETT, P.J., BUSSEY, J., evidence, including weigh the jury to concur. testimony, credibility appellant’s print the thumb found determine whether during cash left
inside the drawer was during
job burglary. interview print during was left
jury found thumb burglary and convicted the jury’s
We will not interfere with the ver-
dict, though sharp even there conflict
in the evidence and different inferences GOULSBY, Appellant, Clifford Lee may be drawn from the evidence v. trial, province since it is the exclusive weigh Oklahoma, the evidence and deter- Appellee. STATE of State, mine the facts. v. 607 P.2d Renfro No. F-84-731. 703, that, 705 We find view- ing light all the evidence most favor- Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. State, able to a rational trier of fact 31, Aug. 1987. could have found the evidence established guilt Rehearing 6, of second bur- Denied Oct. 1987. beyond glary a reasonable doubt. This as-
signment of error is without merit.
For his second and final asserts that his sen
tence should be modified the interests of
justice imposition to exclude the of court
costs and assessment to the victims com
pensation indigent. fund because he is an State, relies on Gee v. 538 1102, (Okl.Cr.1975)
P.2d and Hilde State, (Okl.
brandt v. 507 P.2d
Cr.1973). initially We observe that the im
position of court costs of $133.60 Impo
accordance with 28 101. compensation
sition of the victims assess
ment of was in $50.00 accordance with
O.S.Supp.1984, 142.18(B). The fines
were statutory well within the limits.
Thus, unduly pun the trial court
ishing merely following but
the dictates of Vigil the statutes. (Okl.Cr.1983). Second,
666 P.2d imposed paid fines were to be within
six peniten months after release from the
tiary. appellant may presently While the indigent,
be an way this Court has no
knowing his financial status at the time the paid.
fines are due to be This issue is
prematurely raised. Jones v. *2 weapon at that time. Jeffers was taken hospital pronounced he was where
dead on arrival. his first of error the
appellant argues that the trial court should display have groin allowed him to scar to *3 Hull, the Appellate which he claimed was the Terry J. Asst. Public De- result of fourth fender, Norman, a stab wound inflicted on him for the deceased. Appellant testified that Jeffers Gen., Atty. Turpén, Michael C. Tomilou inflicted a fourth wound in appel knife the Liddell, Gen., Gentry Atty. Asst. State of groin appellant lant’s area the had Okl., appellee. City, Oklahoma for Hospital shot Jeffers. records did not re wound, flect treatment for this nor could OPINION treating physicians police or the officer BUSSEY, Judge: who later changed dressings the recall appellant, Goulsby, The Lee Clifford was a such wound. When defense counsel Court of convicted the District Canadian moved to exhibit to the jury the scar the CRF-83-469, County, of Case No. First prosecutor objected ground the on that Murder, Degree sentenced and was to life way knowing there was no of when the imprisonment. raising appeals He eleven scar occurred. In appellant chambers assignments of error. judge showed all four the scars to trial requested defense counsel that the jury be Evidence was that on the eve- them, allowed to view all of to which the ning appellant of October the prosecutors objected. The trial court de Apartments the Briarwood El went commenting nied the motion that he did not Reno, Oklahoma, looking Greg Jeffers. viewing that scars believe the would be appellant just police The had come the proper, testimony concerning and that just station where his sister had been re- had presented. them been We have fre release, jail. leased from her After the quently admissibility held of evidence appellant station, police had in the stated is a matter within the court’s discre “you might come back well down and will not reversed on appeal tion be there, fight.” going there is be a When showing prejudice or without of severe appellant apart- found at the Jeffers appellant’s of breach fundamental fight, they began ments Jeffers State, rights. (Okl. Mills v. times, appellant stabbed three once in Cr.1979). Based the circumstances of appellant’s the back. When the brother case, prejudice we find that up fight, Although broke Jeffers fled. assignment shown. This of error is merit- differs, appellant then less. gun tried to obtain a from several individu- als, finally paid gun. man for his one assignment In his second Pursuing Jeffers, appellant found him that the trial court contends parked
in a
pickup
with the
truck
when it
instruct the
erred
did not
lant’s sister and Jeffer’s uncle. After
prove
in order to
with malice afore
murder
breaking
window,
out a
fired
must,
thought,
beyond a
the State
reason
pickup,
three
four shots
into
three of
doubt,
passion.
disprove
We
able
heat
mortally
which struck and
wounded Jef-
request
did not
first note that
dragged
fers. The appellant then
Jeffers
given,
even
that such an instruction
pickup,
grabbed
out of the
ap-
Jeffers
though
proposed in
eleven
submitted
pellant
legs,
around the
and the appellant
writing,
some which were
structions
struck and kicked Jeffers.
States
cites United
Appellant
given.
Cir.1985)
Lofton,
(10th
for the
claimed
when Jeffers
F.2d
him,
instruction should
grabbed
proposition
a fourth time.
that such an
was stabbed
given
requested by
whether or not
de-
Other witnesses claimed that Jeffers had be
distinguishable
gave
is
The court
Instruction No. 40
fense counsel.
which
Lofton
credibility witnesses,
at bar because
defend
from the case
covered
and we
to murder was that the
ant’s sole defense
find that such an instruction was sufficient.
pas
in the heat of
homicide
committed
For his fourth
of error
sion, thereby making
offense man
contends that the trial court
of murder.
slaughter instead
the case
refusing
give
erred in
requested
his
in
bar,
defense was self-de
structions, which
clarify
were meant to
manslaughter
fense. The instruction on
Jury
Uniform
Instruction regarding self-
offense,
given as a lesser included
not
given by
the court.1
charge
as a defense to the
of murder. See
asserts that
the uniform instruction was
(Okl.Cr.
Brewer v.
required
clear.
claims that
1986).
there
deadly
belief that use of
force was neces
merit.
fore without
sary
appear
must
reasonable from a de
Next,
contends that
viewpoint
fendant’s
rather than from a rea
*4
by instructing
the trial court erred
person’s
sonable
viewpoint.
argues
concerning prior inconsistent statements
by
this issue was diluted
the three
by
refusing
give
made
and
to
references in the instruction to reasonable
regarding
the same instruction
the testimo
danger,
ness of the belief of
these
ny Wesley
appellant argues
of
Gross.
appear
references make it
lay jury
to a
that the
of Gross was inconsist
appellant’s viewpoint
had to conform to
particular points.
ent on
Gross testified on
of
person.
a reasonable
Case law
direct examination that the
was
clearly
subjective
reveals that the
belief of
attempting
pistol
to obtain a
and offered
danger
a defendant
that he is in
is not
Wayne Epps
Epps
for one. When
$150.00
enough to show self-defense.
Woods
agreed,
appellant put
in
his hand
his State,
(Okl.Cr.1971)
571 (Criminal) Jury sufficiency der. The Instruction No. test for of the Uniform evi- disposition whether, concerning the dence is reviewing deceased’s the evi- juryAs instructions are with- dence in light for violence. most favorable to the discretion, we will not in the trial court’s a rational of fact trier could have if, them when considered as interfere with found the essential elements the crime whole, they accurately fairly and state beyond a reasonable doubt. Roberts v. applicable Brooks v. 714 State, law. ap- (Okl.Cr.1986). The instruction pellant argues pursuit that his of Mr. Jef- given proper, we find no error. fers, himself, after he clearly armed anger motivated caused the earlier stab- In his sixth bing, and therefore evidence in the contends that court erred in the trial re- light most to the favorable State was far fusing Requested give Jury Defendant’s supportive more passion of heat of man- O.S.1981, cited 21 Instruction No. which slaughter, O.S.1981, than murder. Title 21 authority. judge gave 733 as The trial § provides, design “A to effect death § instruction, an entirety its may to constitute murder agreed giving defense counsel that the formed instantly committing before the act satisfy that instruction would Defendant’s by which it is carried into execution.” Title 2, 3, Requested Jury Instructions Nos. provides, “Homicide ap- 5. Therefore find no merit in we design committed with a to effect death is pellant’s contention. not the less perpetra- murder because In his of er seventh anger tor inwas a state of ... at the ror, appellant alleges that certain re *5 passion manslaughter time.” Heat of must by prosecutor during closing marks the perpetrated design a without to effect argument right denied him his to a fair 711(2). death. Even complains prosecutor trial. He the though the evidence reveals that the liar, repeatedly him as referred to a angry lant was he because had been repeatedly misstated the evidence in clos stabbed, bargained gun, a pur- for ing. only We first note that one remark of victim, fleeing sued the fired three or four prosecutor properly preserved by the shots at the victim had who retreated into a objection, any an and so he has waived pickup, pulled pickup, him the him hit alleged appeal. error on Mahorney v. gun, with the and kicked him. Three of the State, (Okl.Cr.1983). Addi gunshots victim, struck and he the died as tionally, reviewing prosecutor’s a result of those The wounds. closing argument, prose that the we note sister, pickup was in who with the liar, appellant cutor did not a call the al uncle, victim and his testified that the vic- though he the veracity did address of the tim was unarmed time of the at the shoot- argument proper Such is if an ing. allegations supports The evidence supported by the evidence. See Robertson intentional, killing and not State, (Okl.Cr.1974). v. Con self-defense. As evidence was cerning alleged misstatements of evi conviction, to sustain this dence, objected only to counsel one assignment meritless. of error is appellant instances of which complains, and the court trial admonished assignment In his ninth of error the jury argument counsel, that this was appellant jury’s verdict maintains that they had heard the evidence and were improperly preoccupa decided they to make the decision what on heard. punishment. tions Because the with We find the to admonition be sufficient. inquired p.m. at 6:24 to what the maxi assignment This of error is without merit. was, manslaughter mum sentence for appellant’s eighth p.m.,
The returned its murder at 7:10 verdict of proves appellant of error asserts that the circumstantial evi claims premeditation seriously manslaugh dence of was insufficient to had considered support concerning a conviction first mur- ter but were confused maxi- for PARKS, they Judge, concurring decided to Therefore in
mum sentence.
results:
to
of murder
order
convict
page
majority opinion,
At
5 of the
it is
give a life sentence.
“[ajlthough
prosecutor]
stated that
did
[the
speculation and we find it
merely
is
veracity
address the
of the
...
merit.
to be without
argument
supported
an
is
proper
[s]uch
by
agree
the evidence.” While I would
next claims that he
The
prosecutor
argue
that a
is entitled to
con-
assistance
counsel.
received ineffective
object
failed to
to
argues
supported
that counsel
tradictions and
inconsistencies
improper prosecutorial
remarks
repeated
evidence,
by
unprofessional
con-
“[i]t
closing argument, that he failed to
during
prosecutor
duct for
express
his or
allegedly
a witness who
could substan
call
personal
opinion
her
belief or
as to the
wound,
appellant’s fourth stab
tiate the
falsity
any
truth or
or evi-
present
failed to call
witness who was
of the defendant.” ABA
guilt
dence or the
during
alleged
robbery
an
armed
commit
Justice,
Standards
Criminal
Jeffers,
by
argue
failed to
heat of
ted
Function,
Prosecution
3-5.8(b).
In ad-
passion manslaughter
closing argument,
dition, contrary
majority
to the view of the
relying
justifi
instead on self-defense and
“any”
error is waived
the failure to
effectuating
able homicide
the course of
object, majority
of this
has
Court
stated
a lawful citizen’s arrest. Under the stan
object
improper
that the failure to
com-
Washington,
Strickland v.
set out in
dards
prosecutor
ments
waives all but
668, 104
2052,
In his last proposes
lant this Court should fail reversal, require
to find error
the errors cited him his warrant
conviction be modified to first man-
slaughter. Having failed to find modification,
requiring reversal or
judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.
BRETT, P.J., concurs.
PARKS, J., concurs results.