*1 enumerates that shall be an specifically “[i]t person any do for
offense Therefore, it clear that following acts.” perceived enacting body person for merely failing to punished
could be property forthwith once a public
leave demanded him to leave. has officer
peace engage unwilling game in a
We are order construe this gymnastics
legal to be consonant constitu-
ordinance findWe Section 3 to be principles.
tional process under both the to due
repugnant and Oklahoma Constitutions. States
United
Accordingly, the and sentence and REMANDED with in- REVERSED to DISMISS.
structions J.,
BRETT,
BUSSEY, P.J., concurs results. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
Jerry STATE Appeals of Oklahoma. 8, 1983. City beneficiary is the wherein said Tulsa or upon 2. To be drunk or intoxicated in or realty improve- and benefit of said the use property cause said and to disturb the ments, use, enjoyment benefit and of its any person. peace of citizens: upon property 3. To remain said and refuse 1.To or intoxicated in or drunk property forthwith to leave said after demand drinking property consuming in- said peace officer. toxicating liquor, glue, or from the inhalation of paint, intoxicating or other substances. *2 500
Second, the prosecutor volunterred his veracity as to the opinion William’s testi- mony. prosecutor statement, The in his “I you, gentlemen, to ladies Barrett, Appellate Asst. Public De- Mark lied, just that man all [Williams] Norman, appellant. fender, it...”, unmistakably there is down to re- Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Jan Susan Eric as appellant to a liar. ferred the This com- Gen., Chief, Talbot, Atty. Appellate Asst. improper wholly was unprofes- ment Div., City, State, for appellee. Oklahoma Criminal 629 P.2d (Okl. sional. Cobbs v. 368 Cr.1981). Third, prosecution the
OPINION informed the elements of the jury several crime CORNISH, Judge: and established were uncontested facts. Jerry Williams, The was con- appellant, argued, “the act prosecution The sexual Rape Degree in the First in John- victed of intercourse, forcibly ... has never been Court. District He County son received courtroom, that in this is contested an es imprisonment. sentence of life fact, intercourse was tablished accom penetration was accomplished, plished, it issue dispositive on is appeal The by force.” accomplished Though was the arguments by the prose whether may have been evidence uncontro- State’s denied cuting attorney Williams a fair and elements, in to these regard verted We due trial. to the certainly facts,” “established but prosecutorial numerous instances miscon questions of fact to be instead deter must be appellant afforded a duct the new by jury based the all mined the evi presented implication at trial. The dence voir First, during the dire examination jury the prosecutor the was attempted to prosecutor define the “reason- whether to determine there required was jury. The prosecutor to the able doubt” was clearly intercourse improper. forcible argued: attorney “has no State’s in the Perry “. seen Mason? I al- Anybody to argument supply the area lack of ways they’ve got amazed greater or the weight evidence make of the one of law and them is that their own State, v. 285, Gossett 373 evidence.” P.2d beyond a prove you’ve got to shadow of a (Okl.Cr.1962). 290 beyond doubt. Can doubt Fourth, closing argument the prosecu- in me that not the agree with State’s argued that Williams was no longer also tor the State’s burden burden? That’s is be- innocent. Prosecutor presumed Worthen doubt yond reasonable and the other stated: a much are bur- two statements [heavier] something ... Counsel said about the den.” being presumed defendant innocent. We has previously held that This out with this morning, all started I court or prosecu for the trial the think, it is error probably probably I’m the first attempt to define tion to reasonable doubt that the person to mention defendant State, v. 554 Jones jury. innocent, to the presumed just case this Lorenz in the State of every like defendant Okla- (Okl.Cr.1965); Gresham 396 P.2d every one of us agree homa. think Further, (Okl.Cr.1964). the prosecution 374 that, true this morning, was and that attempt should refrain to define but that gentlemen, presump- ladies and Instructing jury. innocence, the law to the gentlemen, ladies and tion solely law applicable duty temple, like veil just pre- leak, 607 709 trial court. Frazier P.2d innocence will sumption of and it’s any more. not there argument BRETT, J., error. line constituted This (Okl.Cr. 629 P.2d P.J., BUSSEY, dissents. 1981). jurors Fifth, prosecution asked the BUSSEY, Presiding Judge, dissenting: the victim during
sympathize prosecution dissent respectfully I must for the remarked: reason deliberations. *3 complained the errors now belief, that were not her her religious .. . belief, at trial nor objected they properly that’s belief, personal the most her happen could ever review in motion thing that in her for new tragic preserved she life, enough would go trial, rather, that want to were raised for the first relationship she had See, break off Turman v. away, appeal. time fiancee, break contact with the with her (Okl.Cr.1974), and cases P.2d 247 cited away from everything. community, therein. the act of you rape that shock, trauma, emotional that emotional you hide, it makes want
absolutely you makes filthy, act itself feel scrubby, slimy, you and don’t want
dirty, you.
anybody to see commented:
He further happens in Nothing that this court- .. . that, nothing in this wipes out
room do, gives girl we
courtroom that she had pride that she
back the marriage. from Noth- to take
wanted absolutely nothing, ANDERSON, that’s what’s tak- ing, Tucker a/k/a Chub Damon feeling of worth pride, Anderson, Appellant, away. en honor, feeling of something, Taken, away. deliber- was taken what from another human be- force ately by The STATE murder, when short ing .... [I]t’s life, the other thing somebody’s take away from them that’s take you can Appeals of Oklahoma. is there dignity, most, precious, most and that’s being, what this human 1983. away girl, to take man tried away girl. what he took direct disregard These comments instruction for the court’s
the trial sentiment, or prejudice sympathy, to allow its decision.
to influence the comments in this case were
Although by contemporaneous objec- accompanied
tions, their combined effect we his fundamental Williams
deprived Therefore, we and
to a fair require comments
hold that Tart reversal. See supra; Lewis RE- sentence and REMANDED for new trial.
VERSED