*1 workplace symptoms. Appeals’ opinion Claimant’s milieu The Court of and the panel's changed considerably in 1984. Before the review order are vacated and the judge cause is remanded to change, claimant had in a re- the trial for worked proceedings further not atmosphere supervision little inconsistent with laxed pronouncement. this perform duties and was not except specifically those for which he was
hired. The claimant’s work environment DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, changed modified Ms. C.’s status V.C.J., and LAVENDER and ALMA supervisor from that of co-worker with- WILSON, JJ., concur. responsibilities out a clarification of her SUMMERS,JJ., by KAUGER and concur vis-a-visthe claimant. When she asked reason stare decisis. perform additional claimant duties SIMMS, JJ., HODGES and dissent. compensated he not and he which would refused, relationship one their turned into Although higher-level dislike.
of mutual supervisors
school knew about the friction them,
between no action was taken to allev- Instead, the stressful milieu. Mr. B.
iate K., time,
and Dr. for the first rated the performance unsatisfactory.
claimant’s
Dr. threatened to terminate the claimant K. im- specific explanation of what
provements could to avoid dis- be made
charge. simultaneously It was with these
changes in that the claim- work conditions suffering anxiety in- began
ant from somnia. Wayne MERRY and Rebecca Merry, Appellants, persuaded by not the em
We are ployer’s assertion that is factu Schoonover ally distinguishable from the case. Oklahoma, Appellee. The STATE key The element in both Schoonover Stiles, here, is is that also F-87-768. injury
the claimant’s resulted from stress Criminal anxiety by employment’s caused conditions, self-generated a work Nov. propensity worry. require innate Rehearing Feb. Denied injury claimant’s result from ment that the employ reasonably risk incident to his ment is thus satisfied. sum, that the claimant’s the evidence existed and was caused
mental stress is uncontroverted.
the work environment competent evidence to contra-
There nexus of the work-re-
dict the established heart at- with the claimant’s
lated stress hold that the trial tri-
tack. We therefore legal the claimant conclusion that
bunal’s injury personal not suffer an accidental course of his
arising out of and any compe- unsupported by is
employment proof.
tent *2 Sallisaw, George, appel- Daniel
S. lants. Gen., Henry, Atty. Susan
Robert H. Dickerson, Gen., Atty. Marc Asst. Stewart Intern, Bovos, City, for Legal appellee.
OPINION PARKS, Judge: Appellants, Wayne Merry and Rebecca Merry, jury tried and convicted were (63 Marijuana O.S. Possession Unlawful 2-402) and Unlawful Cultivation 2-509), (63 O.S.1981, in Se- Marijuana Court, quoyah County District Case Dennis before the Honorable CRF-86-64 Judge. jury pun- Sprouse, District set (1) year impris- I at one ishment for Count (one thou- onment and a fine of $1000.00 sand) appellants. As to for both dollars punishment for jury set Count imprison- Merry years five Wayne at $30,000.00(thirty thou- ment and a fine of sand) punishment for Rebecca dollars and imprisonment and a Merry years at two thousand) $30,000.00 dollars. (thirty fine of sen- imposed judgment and The trial court jury’s verdict. in accordance with tence We reverse. unnecessary juana appellants’ property.
A
of the facts is
Morris v.
recitation
(Okla.Crim.App.1980).
appellants’ claims. As
in the resolution of
error, appellants Reversing the defendant’s conviction in
assignment of
their first
Morris,
by refusing
stated as
allege the trial court erred
follows:
suppress the
When officers seek a search warrant
by police.
of this
conducted
*3
based on information from a confidential
allegation, appellants, relying on our state
informant,
they
required
it is
that
be able
constitution,
there
insufficient
claim
was
say
to
the informant
his
when
obtained
support
finding that
to
the court’s
evidence
State, Okl.Cr.,
information. Warthen v.
the informant
reliable and his informa-
was
466
As
noted
557 P.2d
tion credible.
Warthen,
in
facts which would establish
point
may
probable cause at one
in time
applied
to deter-
Different tests
enough
to
establish
warrant, de-
validity
mine the
of a search
time.
cause at some other
pending on
a state or federal con-
whether
(Emphasis
original) Clearly,
in
Id.
This
has
stitutional claim is raised.
standards,
validity
the
state constitutional
adopted
“totality
the
of the circumstances”
of the search warrant mandated evidence
Gates, 462
in Illinois v.
test enunciated
as to the date in order to
show
reliabili-
2317,
213,
527
103 S.Ct.
76 L.Ed.2d
ty of the informant’s statement.
Id.
regard
only
to federal constitu-
with
Although the informant told the
State,
See, e.g., Payne
tional claims.
v.
drugs,
magistrate when he observed the
196,
(Okla.Crim.App.1987)
203-4
744 P.2d
testimony
Both the
his
was unsworn.
result,
P.J.,
(Brett,
Concurring in
and
state and federal constitution mandate that
State,
Parks, J., Dissenting); Foster v.
742
upon proba
“... no warrant shall issue but
1131,
(Okla.Crim.App.1987)
P.2d
1136
supported by oath or affirmation
ble
P.J.,
(Brett,
Specially Concurring and
Const,
IV;
amend.
Okla.
...” U.S. Const.
Parks,
Result);
Concurring
Morgan
v.
J.
Clearly,
30.
a search warrant
art.
State,
1373,
§
(Okla.Crim.App.
1375
738
on information which was obtained
based
Result,
1987) (Brett, P.J., Concurring in
is invalid.
“oath or affirmation”
Parks, J.,
Concurring);
Specially
Dix
108,
161
See Wilson
942,
737 P.2d
on v.
(1945); Bowdry
60 Okl.Cr.
J.,
(Brett, P.J.,
Parks,
both
App.1987)
46,
(1936). Thus,
because the
61 P.2d
Result);
Concurring
Tosh v.
were critical under
unsworn statements
(Brett,
527,
(Okla.Crim.App.1987)
analysis,
the search
state constitutional
Parks, J.,
Concurring
in Re
on
must fail as it cannot be based
sult). However,
dealing with a state
oath.
not under
information which was
claim,
we have continued
constitutional
in Aguilar
the test set forth
v. Tex
follow
also fails
The search warrant
108,
1509,
as,
12 L.Ed.2d
84 S.Ct.
it
not raised
grounds. While was
other
States,
Spinelli
v. United
party,
note that no affidavit was
either
we
410,
393 U.S.
clear tran- Oklahoma, whether was Appellee. STATE of 1223.1, required by Section it scribed as No. C-86-49. appeal. not included record on Furthermore, there doubt that such Court of Criminal “supplemental testimony any was not affidavits,” presented. as no affidavit was Dec. 1988. O.S.1981, Accordingly, 1224.1. As Corrected Dec. must fail search warrant for the lack of Rehearing Denied Jan. setting an attached affidavit out facts *4 which establish a basis the warrant. Moulton v. Layman (1951);
Okla.Crim. It
was error for the trial court to admit evi-
dence under invalid search
warrant. reasons,
For the aforementioned
judgment and of appellants sentences and REMANDED
REVERSED for further
proceedings not inconsistent opin- with this
ion.
BRETT, concurs. concurring result: Judge,
BUSSEY, must this case agree that
Though I of the insufficiency to the due
reversed I search supporting analysis of the majority’s disagree applied. For to be
proper standard in Dixon stated reasons I that the believe (Okla.Crim.App.1987), of Illi test the circumstances” “totality of Gates, 213, 103 S.Ct. nois v. applies to search L.Ed.2d validity claims Constitu Constitution holding this Court’s light of
tion. Warthen that under opinion of the I am
App.1976), circumstances, sufficient totality of justify exist to I, therefore concur search majority. by the
result reached