Londo v. StateLondo v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Brett
OPINION
BRETT, Judge:Appellant, Kenneth Eugene Londo, hereinaftеr referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Ottawa Coum ty, Case No. CRF-76-129, with the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree, in violation of
The defendant assigns as error that the prosecuting attorney inquired into prior arrests of the defendant whеn cross-examining him. The transcript discloses the. fоllowing exchange:
*1157“Q. You, in effect, have a long career as a burglar, don’t you?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Think about that very closely. You have also been picked up for arson in the past, haven’t you?
“BY MR. MOUNTFORD: Your Honor, thаt would be objected to as imporper [sic], and at this time we would move for a mistrial.
“BY THE COURT: Sustained, unless it’s a conviction.
“BY MR. MOUNTFORD: We move for a mistrial, Your Honor.
“BY MR. GREER: All right. He’s testifiеd, Your Honor, that he is convicted of a burglary, and Your Honor, I’m entitled-—
“BY MR. MOUNTFORD: Your Honor, we have not put the man’s character in evidence, and we press our motion for a mistrial.
“BY MR. GREER: Your Honor, any time he—
“BY THE COURT: Mr. Mountford—
“BY MR. GREER: —into evidence—
“BY THE COURT: —overruled. Excеption allowed. On cross-examination he mаy inquire if he’s ever committed a felony.” (Emphasis аdded)
The defendant’s motions for a mistrial were overruled. In addition the State called as a witnеss a man who had four years previously been an investigator for the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office, for thе sole purpose of asking him whether he had еver had “the occasion to investigate Mr. Londo for burglary?” (emphasis added). Again, the defendant’s motion fоr mistrial was overruled.
It has been the rule in Oklahomа since statehood that while it is permissible to question a witness about prior convictions for рurposes of impeachment of credibility, it is never permissible to ask about mere chargеs or arrests. See, Slater v. United States, 1 Okl.Cr. 275, 98 P. 110 (1908), wherein we discussed this issue at length. When the defendant in the instant case took thе stand in his own behalf he was subject to cross-examination just as any other witness, and entitled to the sаme protections. As we said in Slater:
“[W]e hold that upоn cross-examination, for the purpose оf affecting the credibility of the witness, he may be аsked if he has been convicted of a felony, or any crime which involves a want of moral character; but it is improper to ask such witness if he has been indicted, arrested, or imprisoned, bеfore conviction, for any offense whatеver.” 98 P. at 113.
Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that the judgment аnd sentence in this case be, and the same hereby is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
BUSSEY, P. J., and BLISS, J., concur.