Turnbow v. State

Citation1969 OK CR 92,451 P.2d 387
Decision Date26 February 1969
Docket NumberNo. A--14830,A--14830
PartiesRobert Wayne TURNBOW, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

1. Mere assignment of error, unsupported by the record, will not constitute grounds for reversal.

2. Evidence that the defendant had sexual relations with complaining witness twice in a short period of time, HELD to constitute only a single offense of rape.

3. As a general rule, in the prosecution of one accused of a particular offense, evidence showing or tending to show the commission by accused of another crime or crimes entirely distinct and independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same class, is neither relevant nor admissible.

4. An exception to the general rule exists when the evidence of similar offenses tends to show a system, plan, or scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the other.

5. In a prosecution for rape, evidence of similar offenses which shows that in the commission of the offense the accused used a system or plan characterized by a peculiar method of operation tends to establish the offense charged and is admissible on that basis.

6. Record examined and judgment and sentence of 99 years imprisonment for the crime of Rape in the First Degree, HELD not excessive.

An appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Jack R. Parr, Judge.

Robert Wayne Turnbow was convicted of the crime of Rape in the First Degree, was sentenced to serve 99 years in the State Penitentiary, and appeals. Affirmed.

Don Anderson, Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Reid Robison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Robert Wayne Turnbow, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, of the crime of Rape in the First Degree. He was sentenced to serve 99 years in the State Penitentiary, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Briefly stated, the facts adduced on the trial reveal that the complaining witness testified that on April 17, 1967, she was in a laundromat on Southwest 29th Street in Oklahoma City, waiting for clothes to dry, at approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. She testified that she was alone when a man, whom she identified as defendant, walked in, made a few remarks, and stood near her. The man waited five minutes; approached the witness with a knife; told her not to scream; threatened that if she did scream he would use the knife on her; and told her to get up from her chair and go to the back of the laundromat to the restroom. The defendant then told this witness to take off her clothes and again threatened her with the knife, whereupon she complied. The defendant then told the totally naked woman, to put her foot upon the stool, told her not to make any noise, then had sexual relations with her. He then told this witness to lay down on the floor, and had her commit oral sodomy. Defendant then had sexual relations with this witness on the floor. The defendant then told the witness not to leave the restroom or he would use the knife on her and anyone else who might have entered the laundromat. Shortly thereafter, this witness went to the South Community Hospital, where she was examined by Dr. William Moore. Dr. Moore took a vaginal smear from this witness, which was found to contain sperm.

Thereafter, another witness testified that on May 20, 1967, she had been in a laundromat at 4900 South May Avenue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with her three year old son. She testified that the defendant had been loitering in the laundromat and had attempted to make idle conversation and had asked her to go to the ladies' restroom to look for a billfold. This witness refused and the defendant pulled out a knife and held it to her throat, with the blade extended. He then told the witness to take her boy and go back to the restroom in the rear of the laundromat. This witness refused and upon her refusal, the defendant picked up the young boy and cut his throat slightly, whereupon this witness yielded to defendant's demands. As she approached the restroom, another couple was seen by the defendant to be entering the laundromat, and defendant fled.

Another witness testified that on May 26, 1967, she was in a laundromat at 2616 Southwest 29th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at approximately 10:00 p.m., with her two little girls. There were no other persons in the laundromat at this time and the defendant came in and sat watching her. The defendant asked this witness whether or not she had seen a billfold, and then moved on her with a knife. He then told this witness to take her children and move back to the restroom. The children were frightened and resisted, but went with their mother. Once in the restroom, the defendant told this witness to take off her clothes, even though the two children were present, and even though this witness was eight months pregnant at the time. The knife at this time was at her throat and this witness complied. The defendant told her to put her foot up on the toilet stool and then had sexual relations with this witness. Soon thereafter, he had this witness commit oral sodomy and finally had further intercourse with her.

There are several assignments of error which we will deal with in the order in which they arose in the trial court, and not in the order in which they were presented in the brief of defendant.

The first assignment of error deals with the frequently raised contention that the jurors selected to try the defendant were volunteer jurors in that some members of the jury panel who had participated in the trial of cases two weeks prior to the order of the District Court extending the term of jury service for six days, were excused from the panel. Here, as in Hill v. State, Okl.Cr., 443 P.2d 126; Satchell v. State, Okl.Cr., 443 P.2d 125; and Bickerstaff v. State, Okl.Cr., 446 P.2d 73, the defendant has failed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • State of Washington v. Cole, 96-1-00315-1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 24, 1999
    ...the other in her bedroom, were part of the same criminal transaction occasioned by continuous use of force and threats); Turnbow v. State, 451 P.2d 387, 389-90 (Okla. 1969) (no error to incorporate into a single charge two acts of intercourse that occurred within minutes of each other but w......
  • Myers v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 8, 2000
    ...(Okl.Cr.1986); Driver v. State, 634 P.2d 760, 762 (Okl.Cr.1981); Lambert v. State, 609 P.2d 785, 787 (Okl.Cr. 1980); Turnbow v. State, 451 P.2d 387, 390 (Okl. Cr.1969). 10. Miller v. State, 1998 OK CR 59, 977 P.2d 1099, 1107, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 897, 120 S.Ct. 228, 145 L.Ed.2d 192 11. 20......
  • State v. Frazier
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 11, 1981
    ...act of rape. Klinekole v. State, 572 P.2d 994, 998 (Okl.Cr.1977); Turnbow v. State, 454 P.2d 674, 675 (Okl.Cr.1969); Turnbow v. State, 451 P.2d 387, 389 (Okl.Cr.1969). These cases hold merely that where evidence of several acts of intercourse is offered in support of a single charge of rape......
  • State v. Bailey, 82-329
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 27, 1984
    ...but one entire transaction, or one offense. People v. Mota, 115 Cal.App.3d 227, 234, 171 Cal.Rptr. 212, 215 (1981); Turnbow v. State, 451 P.2d 387, 389-90 (Okl.Cr.App.1969); Steele v. State, 523 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1044(b)(2), at Defendant cites sev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT