*1 (1949). aggression, aural prevent To quantity municipality regulate can PETERS, Appellant, Charles Oscar York, 334 U.S. noise. v. New Saia (1948). As Jus- 92 L.Ed. 1574 S.Ct. supra, in Grayned, tice Marshal stated “[i]f Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of loudspeakers assault the citi- overamplified No. F-84-15. may turn them down.” zenry, government ordinance, We therefore find Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. only the volume at which regulates played, is is not overbroad. music Jan. 1986. respect to the

With 401(B) unduly restricts

claim that Section religion, note free of his we exercise prohibit the does not the ordinance views, nor religious of his

dissemination amplified prevent playing

does requires is that if All the ordinance

music. the volume of the played,

music is adjusted peace so that the

loudspeakers be dwellings their is not dis

of citizens inside such a do not believe that

turbed. We unreasonable, any

request is abridged. thereby freedom is

Amendment

See, Saia, assignment supra. his final error, al appellant raises numerous sufficiency

legations to the of the evi as grouped may claims be into

dence. These First, appel general categories.

two credibility of the State’s

lant attacks the long has The rule Oklahoma

witnesses.

been, however, credibility of wit weight and consideration

nesses and the testimony are within the given to their

be province of the trier of fact.

exclusive

Renfro Second, appellant asserts that as he was not is uncontroverted that instrument, that he it follows

playing an ordinance. The record violate that the admitted

reveals charge aspects all of the revival Since he directed the music. ordinance, he violated the

activity which principal. as a punishment assignment This 432. merit. is

error without appealed and sentence

The AFFIRMED.

from is J.,

PARKS, P.J., concur. *2 agent. evening,

O.S.B.I. Later that Juror Hadley spoke daughter-in-law with her and why she attended the trial. She said testimony she came to hear by offered her boss, agents of the one O.S.B.I. testifying. done prepare This was to her in case she testify. ever called to was counsel Appellant’s asserted that had he Hadley relative, Juror had this and one, niece, actually a third working for Appellate Defend- Schay, E. Public Alvin he have would exercised a er, Norman, appellant. for peremptory challenge to excuse her. At a Gen., Turpén, Atty. Michael Tomilou C. hearing appellant’s conducted on motion Liddell, Gen., Gentry Atty. Asst. State of trial, for Mrs. new testified that she Okl., City, appellee. for Oklahoma did not volunteer dire the voir daughter-in-law mation that her and niece for also worked because OPINION O.S.B.I. she think pretty of it and up was shook BUSSEY, Judge: at the time. She that seeing also said her Charles Oscar Peters was convicted of daughter-in-law in the courtroom had no Degree Murder in and sentenced deliberations, having effect on and that single imprisonment. to life He raises working three relatives for the O.S.B.I. did appeal: issue on Whether the fact that one not cause her to the testimony underscore had three relatives who worked agents. of the O.S.B.I. Investiga- the Oklahoma Bureau of State against appellant The evidence offered tion, only which defense was one of trial included an of abundance circumstan- apprised voir is a sufficient presented tial basis to and sen- reverse eight agents. O.S.B.I. the evi- tence? dence, circumstantial, though strongly was During jury, of the one venire- dire appellant’s guilt. indicative The evi- man, Evelyn Hadley, the fact volunteered Hadley’s daughter-in- dence Rust, daughter, that she had a who Susie law’s offered boss was that ballistics. Oklahoma worked for the State Bureau point He stated that the hollow bullets Investigation. questioning, further On from body recovered the victim’s were stated that her was not allowed micro-grooving fired from a rifle with only and that discuss her work knew the rifle from recovered collecting work consisted of data from Marlin, apartment, only was rifle he Attorneys the District across the State micro-grooving. knew manufactured with putting computer. affirmed into a She friend testified that had bor- give this fact not cause her gun days from prior rowed this him few greater credibility to from the witnesses appel- to the homicide. This friend asked O.S.B.I.; that she know going hunting. Appellant lant if he was any of the witnesses. She was never asked no, only shells, said had fourteen if she had relatives or friends who were enough that was what he was involved in enforcement. law going point to do. Hollow bullets were day During the of trial one second when in appellant’s apartment. also found agents of the testifying, O.S.B.I. prints were a There shoe daughter-in-law, Sherry Hadley, entered vicinity and in the spectator courtroom and remained as a homicide sand through testimony body another creek from victim’s gate on those which af- corresponded voir dire matters closely recovered which qualifications to sit as a fect a venireman’s shoes pattern pair on a of tennis with juror. That which would have been dis- arrested. appellant was when diligence during by reasonable closed gunfire from the vic- witness heard One grounds cannot later be made with dire p.m. 7:00 property 5:00 and between *3 Smith, supra. to attack the verdict. 21, witness saw August 1982. Another on equal This is not to the situation in which a matching appellant’s description on man pertinent fails to disclose venireman crossing where the vic- road the creek inquiry mation when is made. Manuel v. approximately body was found State, (Okl.Cr.1975). 541 P.2d 233 evening, carrying p.m. that same 6:30-7:30 camouflage. Camou- a rifle and We have on a number of occasions recovered from flage attire was juror held the fact that a knew a being at Appellant admitted apartment. require was not alone sufficient to witness using his truck on the place and decedent’s juror removal of a for cause. Cook v. homicide, killing denied evening (Okl.Cr.1982); State, 650 P.2d 863 Parsons the victim. State, (Okl.Cr.1979); 1144 603 P.2d Bias v. ap- testified that of witnesses (Okl.Cr.1977), State, 523 certio v. 561 P.2d uncle, victim, had had pellant and the denied, 434 98 S.Ct. 54 rari U.S. homicide, prior to dispute a few weeks State, 300; 451 Blozy L.Ed.2d v. 557 P.2d required to appellant had been shown, (Okl.Cr.1976). Prejudice must be Also, property. of his uncle’s move off do, in order to appellant has failed money at this appellant had been without dictates reversal. demonstrate error which fifty dollar with two time but was arrested error, judg- Having failed to demonstrate bills, often car- the victim a denomination is AFFIRMED. ment and sentence ried. fact alone that Mrs. consider the We BRETT, J., specially concurs. during voir dire Hadley did not volunteer that her other information the additional PARKS, P.J., dissents. of no the O.S.B.I. worked for

relatives concurring. specially Judge: She was not great consequence. type elicit that of information. questions to necessary for me to it is I feel that willing to inform the more than She was in from the one distinguish this decision attorneys court that her closest (Okl.Cr. State, 942 698 P.2d v. Tibbetts for the O.S.B.I. relatives worked three Tibbetts, juror make 1985). obviously most relationship That her son-in-law dire that county, to her. prominent of Comanche deputy sheriff trial participating he was at Hadley advised the Had Mrs. the courtroom. defendant to delivering the her rela three of torneys and court that instant case Although in the O.S.B.I., alone this for the tives worked daughter- counsel that to inform failed challenged to have O.S.B.I., not be sufficient niece worked in-law and 572; 22 O.S. daughter her for cause. her own did state Moreover, to in failure disclo Despite 658-660. for the O.S.B.I. worked §§ jury. under chal The fact sure, on the quire on voir dire of was left State, Mrs. Had- whom daughter-in-law, v. waiver. Smith lenge constitutes (Okl.Cr.1982); forgotten worked ley Greathouse had P.2d 1067 to be appears courtroom (Okl.Cr.1972); Rober in the State, appeared P.2d 239 the O.S.B.I. especially since (Okl.Cr.1968). insignificant, It State, son witness. a technical testifying was agent investi- counsel to duty of defense is the Moreover, PARKS, dur- Presiding Judge, dissenting: testified both ing voir dire and at the motion for new trial I dissent from the decision this case. I family that her ties would not—and did believe the conviction herein re- should be decision. not—influence her versed remanded for a new trial based on the rationale contained in Tibbetts v. concerning Had the information 698 P.2d 942 provided the not been defense I would take a different view of this decision. pertinent

insofar as the information was juror,

revealed I believe the two sufficiently distinguishable.

cases are