Sexson v. State
620 P.2d 1326
Okla. Crim. App.
1980
Check Treatment

*1 by the (10) years requested of the ten stead an unre- of evidence of On the use

State. fall. crime, conviction should

lated refusal of consequence is the further

Of testi- admit recorded

the trial court to Pickle, light appel-

mony of Don presence diligence to secure

lant’s to cross- opportunity

the face of the State’s hearing. I preliminary at the

examine him conclude, Majority, that as does the

cannot would have been testimony of Pickle appel- with the that he was

cumulative in were length of time than greater

lant for a Therefore, respect-

the other witnesses.

fully dissent. SEXSON, Appellant,

Billy Leroy of STATE F-79-252.

No. Appeals of Oklahoma.

Court Criminal Monroe, Silva, Jr., Appel- Pete

Stanley D. Defenders, Tulsa, appellant. for late Public Gen., Cartwright, Atty. Eric David Jan Gen., Lee, appellee. Atty. W. Asst. for *2 1327 OPINION II Secondly, appellant the argues that CORNISH, Presiding Judge: the judge trial committed error in not strik having charged After been with Murder ing the particulars bill of jury to the in Degree killing the First for the of his selection. There was on file partic a bill of wife, Appellant guilty the was by found a setting ulars (3) out three of the statutory jury Degree Manslaughter of First and as- aggravating circumstances as by set Okla a (200) sessed sentence of two hundred 1976, homa law. Ex.Sess., See Laws 1st c. years in the District County 1, 5, Court of Tulsa now 21 O.S.Supp.1980 § § 701.11. We in Case No. CRF-78-1030. This was a bru- are opinion of the appel because the tal homicide. Debbie was asphyxi- Sexson lant was found guilty of manslaughter in by strangulation suffocation, and, ated the degree and first at the conclusion of the addition, guilt in finding stage trial, postmortem received numerous of the the bill of particulars defense, stab was never wounds. In the read to the appellant jury. This issue is therefore addition, claimed no moot. In recollection of the homicide by authority no has been reason of submitted to us in being paint under the influence of support proposition. of this fumes. See Collins v.

State, Okl.Cr., (1965). 407 P.2d 609 III complained appeal of on is the First appellant urges support next in error of the binding trial court in not him of reversal that his incriminating state over on a charge lesser of either murder in police ments to the were not the result of a the degree second or manslaughter. In ef knowing intelligent waiver of right fect, argues he that at the preliminary State, under 436, Miranda v. 384 U.S. 86 hearing completely the State failed to dem 1602, (1966). S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 694 Defense onstrate the aforethought” pro “malice as argues counsel appellant that the was “di Ex.Sess., 1, by vided Laws 1st c. § sheveled, disoriented, . .. and in a trance- now 21 O.S.Supp.1980, 701.7A. We have § like condition” because forty eight of some carefully transcript examined the sniffing paint. hours of After conduct preliminary hearing and are of the opinion ing an hearing in-camera on the voluntari that the evidence was sufficient to support confession, ness of the the court allowed the binding order him over to stand trial in presented this issue to jury be to the under the District Court. recently As we stated proper McCoy State, instructions. In v. State, Holloway Okl.Cr., in 602 P.2d 218 Okl.Cr., (1975), Bliss, 534 Judge P.2d 1317 (1979): speaking court, for a unanimous stated: “We find from our review of the tran though “We have held that even the ac- script that testimony prelim taken at the may cused be to some extent under the inary hearing presented sufficient evi influence of narcotics this fact alone does dence by conclusively the from which not State the exam establish the confession ining magistrate involuntary. as public Consequently, may could find the he alleged incriminating offense make in the information had statements to inter- committed, rogating being been officers while and there was sufficient under the influence cause to of narcotic.” believe the defendant had com State, mitted the offense. Turner v. Okl. This contention therefore lacks merit. Cr., (1976). 549 1346 And where P.2d IV there competent is evidence the record the reviewing court will not interfere Lastly, Appellant the argues that with the determination of the finder of the excessive sentence was the result of the State, Okl.Cr., fact. Tabor v. 582 P.2d improper admission of evidence and error in (1978).” 1323 qualifying jury pen- to return the death the sadistic manner Considering alty. killed, well as the was as the victim

which stab- concerning postmortem

evidence body, we feel the sen- victim’s

bing of the We are not not excessive. imposed

tence is *3 of two hundred by a sentence

shocked

years. affirmed. judgment will be

BUSSEY, J., concurs.

BRETT, J., concurs. specially

BRETT, concurring). Judge (specially should be this conviction

I concur

affirmed, modify the sentence but would imprisonment. life

to BYRNE, Appellant,

James Clinton

The STATE

No. F-78-601. Appeals of Oklahoma.

Court of Criminal 1980. Jan.

Rehearing Denied