OPINION
Aрpellant, Donald Ray Singleton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried by jury and convicted in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-76-153, of the offense of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1713. Defendant was sentenced to serve one (1) yеar in the Tulsa County Jail and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The testimony at trial revealed that on November 10, 1975, Roy Lee Hall returned home from work at about 5:30 р. m. and found the door to his apartment open. Upon examination of the premises Mr. Hall discovered that his television was missing. He was able to identify the television because he had previously scratched his name and address in the top right hand corner on the bаck of the set. Mr. Hall contacted the
On January 19, 1976, Officer Lyle William Wells, Jr., and Officer David Warren Winter responded to a disturbanсe call at 10:46 p. m., and went to an apartment complex on South Lewis Avenue. The officers were met by a security guard and werе directed to an apartment where sounds of an argument could be heard. The officers knocked at the door and a woman identified as Ms. Brown motioned them to come inside. A man, identified as the defendant, was also present in the apartment. After talking to thе two occupants it was decided that Ms. Brown would not file charges against the defendant, but the defendant was to gather his belongings and lеave the apartment. As defendant began to gather his belongings, the officers noticed a television set in the living room, and asked the defendant if it belonged to him. Defendant replied that it did. When Officer Wells went over to look at the set he noticed the name “Roy Hаll” scratched on the set and noticed that the serial number had been removed. The officers then left the apartment and went to the patrol unit to run a check on the television set. They were informed that the set was stolen, whereupon they returned to the аpartment. The officers knocked on the door, were again admitted, and placed the defendant under arrest, informing him of his rights. The officers also confiscated 14 pieces of electrical equipment, including stereos, amplifiers and several televisiоn sets, many of which had no serial numbers.
The defendant called Officer Winter, who essentially corroborated Officer Wells’ testimony. The оfficer stated that when they returned to the apartment the television set in question had not been removed, but the defendant had stacked most of his personal articles near the door in preparation to leave.
The defendant testified in his own behalf and stated that he did not live in the apartment, but only stayed there occasionally. He testified that the stolen television was not his, and that hе had not indicated to the officers that it was. He further stated that he did not know where the set had come from. Defendant testified that he had never been convicted of any type of crime.
Defendant contends in his first assignment of error that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. This Court agrees that defendant has standing to challenge аn illegal search, if he is a person aggrieved by such a search. See, Wing v. State, Okl.Cr.,
The officers were summoned to the apartment pursuant to a disturbance call. Upon arriving they were voluntarily motioned inside by a resident of the apartment. The officers’ attention was drawn to the television set while defendant was gathering his belongings, as the sеt was in the middle of the living room. Defendant told the officers that the set was his, and a brief glance at the set revealed a unique characteristic, the name “Roy Hall” scratched on top. The officers did not search to find the television, because it was in plаin view. See, Ray v. State, Okl.Cr.,
The general rule in Oklahoma concerning evidenсe of other crimes is found in Songer v. State, Okl.Cr., .
“Testimony is not inadmissible as immaterial because it tends to indicate an offense for which the defendant is nоt on trial if such evidence tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) common schemes or plan еmbracing commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other and (5) identity of a person charged with commission of crime on trial.”
We find that the testimony in the instant case was admissible under these standаrds. The testimony of the officers indicated that the television set claimed by the defendant, with Mr. Hall’s name scratched on it and the seriаl number removed, was closely situated to some 14 other pieces of equipment also with the serial numbers removed. This testimony tends tо show defendant’s intent to conceal the property, and tends to .show absence of mistake on the part of the defendаnt in the possession of the stolen television set. Therefore, we find this testimony was relevant to the case, and the trial court cоmmitted no error in overruling defendant’s motion.
For the reasons stated above the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is, hereby, AFFIRMED.