Joyner v. State

Decision Date21 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. A--16217,A--16217
PartiesEdward Lee JOYNER, 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

John B. Doolin of Newcombe, Redman & Doolin, Lawton, for plaintiff in error.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Jeff Hartmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

Edward Lee Joyner, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant,' was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Comanche County of the offense of Murder, his punishment was fixed at life imprisonment and from said Judgment and Sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Because of the propositions raised by the defendant it is not necessary to recite a detailed statement of facts. Briefly stated several witnesses placed the defendant near the scene of the crime and that he had access to a pistol. The co-defendant, Billy Joe Foster, testified that the defendant said to him in the bar, 'let's get somebody.' Foster denied saying he didn't do things like that. He left the bar to go home and defendant followed. He observed a white soldier walking down the street and the defendant stopped and engaged the soldier in conversation. He next heard the soldier holler 'help' wherein he ran back and the soldier was on the ground with the defendant standing over him with a gun. The defendant told Foster to get the soldier's wallet which he obeyed. Foster told the defendant to put the gun up and started running. He heard a shot and saw the soldier running away from the defendant. He told the defendant not to shoot any more and heard four more shots as the soldier continued to run. Another witness testified that the defendant had also approached him in the bar and said 'let's get somebody man.' The soldier died of the three gun shot wounds in the back.

The defendant called several witnesses who testified that other persons had access to the gun that evening. The defendant testified that he did not shoot the soldier or have any part in the slaying.

The first proposition asserts that the trial court erred in inquiring of the jury how they stood numerically. The record reflects that the jury retired to the jury room at 4:45 P.M. to begin deliberations. At 2:24 A.M. the jury returned to the courtroom wherein the following transpired:

(OUT OF HEARING OF JURY)

'MR. DOOLIN: Let the record show that court appointed attorney requested the Judge to inquire numerically how they stand and not reveal any other information but purely a numerical designation of their division, if any, in which he concurs.

'MR. CALLICOTT: As long as no other questions are asked and no request that they be either discharged or anything as long as they desire to continue their deliberations.

'And the Jury return to the jury box at 2:33 A.M.

'THE COURT: Who is the foreman?

'FRANK M. EDGAR: I am, Your Honor.

'THE COURT: I understand that you folks would like to go to bed and come back in the morning and deliberate the case?

'FOREMAN EDGAR: The last five ballots ot the jury have produced exactly the same result. I feel that with some consideration and perhaps more conversation in the morning we may be able to resolve it.

'THE COURT: All right, sir. Let me ask you this question, and I am going to ask it very carefully. I would like to know how you stand numerically whether it be 6--6, 5--4, and nothing more, just numerically?

'FOREMAN: We stand 11--1.

'THE COURT: Eleven to one. Very well, then go with the bailiffs to your room and about tomorrow morning you can be your own judge of what time you want to get up and come down here. You will have to make arrangements for breakfast. You can talk that over and find out. All right, very well.'

This question has been ruled upon by this Court on many occasions. In Calhoun v. State, Okl.Cr., 406 P.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ellis v. Reed
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 25, 1979
    ...Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976). Others have allowed inquiry of the jury in the absence of coercion. Joyner v. State, 484 P.2d 560, 562 (Okl.Cr. 1971); People v. Carter, 68 Cal.2d 810, 69 Cal.Rptr. 297, 442 P.2d 353, 356 (1968); Huffaker v. State, 119 Ga.App. 742, 168 S.E......
  • State v. Cornell
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1978
    ...order to evaluate the prospects for agreement on a verdict. See e. g., Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss.1976); Joyner v. State, 484 P.2d 560 (Okl.Cr.1971); Huffaker v. State, 119 Ga.App. 742, 168 S.E.2d 895 To indicate the split of authority on this question, we note other courts......
  • Sharplin v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1976
    ...among the jurors. People v. Carter, 68 Cal.2d 810, 69 Cal.Rptr. 297, 442 P.2d 353 (1968), rev'd on other grounds; Joyner v. State, 484 P.2d 560 (Okla.Crim.App.1971); Huffaker v. State, 119 Ga.App. 742, 168 S.E.2d 895 (1969); State v. Morris, 476 S.W.2d 485, 489-90 We conclude that Brasfield......
  • Dunford v. State, F-79-323
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 4, 1980
    ...circuits and the states are split on the question. This Court has allowed such questioning in the past see, for instance, Joyner v. State, Okl.Cr., 484 P.2d 560 (1971) and will continue to do so in the future. It would be improper to ask the jury toward what verdict they were leaning, but a......

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