Joyner v. State
Decision Date | 21 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. A--16217,A--16217 |
Parties | Edward Lee JOYNER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
Court | United 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.
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:
'And the Jury return to the jury box at 2:33 A.M.
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-
Ellis v. Reed
...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
...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
...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
...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......