420 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App. 1966), A--13894, Lung v. State

Docket Nº:A--13894.
Citation:420 P.2d 158
Party Name:Victor Lowell LUNG, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
Case Date:November 09, 1966
Court:Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 158

420 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App. 1966)

Victor Lowell LUNG, Plaintiff in Error,

v.

The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A--13894.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

November 9, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is the duty of counsel to raise at proper time, and in proper manner, all objections to the proceedings and save proper exceptions. When this is not done, they are treated as waived, and there are few exceptions to this rule.

2. Ordinarily, a party may not complain of an error which he himself has invited, or which he has waived either expressly or impliedly. This rule clearly applies to a case where one party resorts

Page 159

to incompetent evidence without objections, and where the opposite party relies with evidence of the same character. In such case, both are at fault and neither can complain in this Court of the admission or exclusion of the evidence by the court below.

3. An individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation. Along with the warning of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, and this is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation.

4. Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. There is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the police to offer a confession or any other statement he desires to make.

5. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment, nor their admissibility affected.

6. Any statement or confession obtained without coercion, including the unsolicited, spontaneous confession, given in the absence of the requirements of the accusatory stage, may be admitted into evidence.

Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.

Victor Lowell Lung was convicted of the crime of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, and appeals under the Post-Conviction Appeal statute. Affirmed.

Luttrell, Luttrell & Pendarvis, Norman, for plaintiff in error.

Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Jeff Hartman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

Victor Lowell Lung, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Cleveland County with the crime of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. He was tried before a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to Three Years in the penitentiary. The defendant appealed to this court out of time, but was allowed to file under the Post-Conviction Appeal statute. He alleges two assignments of error.

The record reveals, in substance, that John Fogle lived in Norman, Oklahoma, and returned to his residence from work at approximately 8:30 p.m. on July 30, 1965. He parked his car in front of his home, went in, and after dressing went outside to find his car missing. He reported this to the police. He testified he had given no one permission to use said car...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP