Benton v. State

• Decision Date: 18 February 1948
• Docket Number: A-10742.
• Citation: 190 P.2d 168,86 Okla.Crim. 137
• Parties: BENTON v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

190 P.2d 168

86 Okla.Crim. 137

BENTON v. STATE.

No. A-10742.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

February 18, 1948

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Harry L. S. Halley, Judge.

Leroy Benton was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Reversed with directions.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A denial of a constitutional right to a person prosecuted for crime is prima facie prejudicial.

2. Under our laws, every person accused of felony is entitled to aid of counsel at every stage of the proceedings whether imprisoned or admitted to bail, unless waiver thereof clearly appears, and this right arises immediately upon the person's arrest.

3. Where it appears on appeal that a defendant has been denied a right guaranteed by the Constitution such showing requires a reversal, unless the record clearly shows that the right was waived, or that no injury could have resulted to the accused by reason of such denial.

4. Where it appears, on appeal, that the defendant has been denied the right to aid of counsel and that substantial injury resulted thereby, the same will constitute grounds for reversal.

5. Under the provisions of Title 22 O.S.A. § 181, 'The defendant must, in all cases, be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay' and a long and unnecessary delay in so doing may constitute grounds for reversal.

6. A confession, to be admissible in evidence, must be free and voluntary. It must not be extracted by any sort of threats of, or fear of, mob violence nor be obtained by any direct or implied promises of benefit.

7. Under both the United States and State Constitutions, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

8. Where a defendant is arrested and held twenty days without the aid of counsel or assistance of friends, and makes a confession shown to have been obtained under fear of mob violence and in consideration of promises of benefit, direct and implied, as to security from mob violence and in consideration of a promise of his release from prison upon the apprehension of the real perpetrator of the crime and is so held without being charged with crime and is not taken before a magistrate, but instead, during said time is removed from Tulsa County, the place of venue, to Okmulgee County where a second attempt at confession is made and then is taken to Kansas City in a third attempt to obtain confession and then is taken to the penitentiary at McAlester in a fourth attempt to obtain a confession, all of which was done by said officers under self-constituted power and without authorization of law; a confession obtained under such conditions and such proceedings cannot be made the basis of due process of law to support a conviction.

9. Held, said conviction being predicated upon a confession obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights, same must be reversed, vacated, set aside.

Amos T. Hall, of Tulsa (B. C. Franklin, of Tulsa, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT Judge.

Defendant, Leroy Benton, a Negro, was charged by information with the murder of Panta Lou Liles, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, on March 15, 1945. The information alleged that said murder was effected by means of a certain heavy, blunt instrument with which the defendant allegedly inflicted certain wounds about Panta Lou Liles' head from which she did die. To the information the defendant on arraignment plead not guilty. He was tried, convicted of murder and his punishment fixed by the jury at life imprisonment. From the judgment and sentence based thereon the defendant perfected this appeal.

The facts in the case are, that the deceased, Panta Lou Liles, was a young white married woman 20 years of age, the wife of a soldier. She was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant while she slept alone in the bedroom of her apartment. The murderer may have gained entrance through a window in the kitchen in the back of her three-room apartment. The window in the kitchen was found open after the murder was discovered. He may have made his exit through a door leading from the bedroom into the hall of the apartment. This door was open at an angle of about 30 degrees when the police officers arrived. Upon entering the bedroom the murderer apparently assaulted Mrs. Liles about the head which rendered her immediately unconscious and from which she died.

Medical examination of Mrs. Liles' private parts revealed that she may have been raped, though it is a known fact that she entertained a married gentleman friend, a Mr. K_____, that night, past the midnight hour. The fact that she may have been raped is predicated upon the removal of some male semen taken from the secretion of the vulva of her body. The record does not reveal whether an analysis of this semen was made as to type; whether type -1-, -2-, -3-, or -4-. Such an analysis of this male semen could have been made for comparison with a speciman of semen taken from the defendant and a speciman taken from Mr. K_____. This was not done. By an analysis and comparison, such as this, it could have at least been determined whether the type of semen found in the vulva of the victim was the same type of the defendant, or Mr. K_____. It would possibly have eliminated one or both the defendant and Mr. K_____, as to the evidence of rape or intercourse with the victim. It might have absolved the defendant of connection with rape of the victim and thus destroyed the motive for murder by the defendant. If the State had made such an analysis as to type of the semen taken from the vulva of the victim and compared it with the semen of the defendant and found it to be of the same type, though not forming the basis for positive identification, it would have been a strong circumstance against the defendant. The defendant, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, would have submitted to such an examination and comparison, since he was without the aid of counsel. This was not done, and hence, the presence of male semen in the vulva of the victim, under the circumstances of this case, forms the first link in a speculative and prejudicial chain upon which this conviction is based.

Mrs. Liles shared her apartment with a Miss Seaburn, a nurse, who worked at night and slept in the daytime. It was Miss Seaburn's practice to call Mrs. Liles over the telephone about 5:00 o'clock in the morning and awaken her. On May 15, 1945, she called at 5:10 A. M. and at first no one answered. Five minutes later, after repeated calls, a voice answered. Miss Seaburn said it could have been the voice of either a man or a woman. It was not the voice of Mrs. Liles. It was not identified by Miss Seaburn as the voice of the defendant. She became suspicious when the voice failed to properly answer a trick question and she called the police. After the defendant's arrest, the County Attorney advised him that a telephone call would be placed to him and he would be asked a question and the county attorney would tell him what to answer. Miss Seaburn put the same trick question over the telephone to the defendant and under instruction from the county attorney she got the same answer from the defendant that she got the night of the murder from the voice that answered the telephone in Mrs. Liles' apartment. But, she said she could not identify the voice that she heard on the morning of May 15, over the telephone, as the voice of the defendant. This feature of the State's case formed another speculative link in this chain of circumstances. However, as to the identification of this defendant, and his guilt, it is a strong circumstance tending to establish that it was not the defendant. Miss Seaburn said the voice over the telephone, the morning of the murder, had the same quality of softness as did Mrs. Liles'. It occurs to us that only someone acquainted with the voice of Mrs. Liles, its quality and tone, under the conditions herein involved, would answer the telephone and attempt to impersonate her voice. The record shows that this defendant had no acquaintance with the victim upon which to base such an impersonation.

The police received news of Miss Seaburn's call over their radio about 5:38 A. M. They immediately went to 501 Cheyenne in Tulsa. There they found the door leading into Mrs. Liles' apartment from the hall open. Their flashlight revealed the beaten and half-exposed dead body of Mrs. Liles lying on the bed. They found the drawers in the dresser open and things thrown out of them as though burglary had been the motive for the crime.

Thereafter, the police took numerous photographs at the scene of the crime and sought for clues. No finger prints were found. Some means of positive evidence leading to the identification of the murderer was sought.

In an effort to connect someone with the crime, the police brought in 'Ranger', a bloodhound, from the City's kennel. The dog was taken to the scene of the crime, picked up a trail, went across the alley, across a vacant lot into the back of a building at 512 North Boulder, which was around the corner from the place where the crime was committed, and far removed from the defendant's apartment at Haskell and Greenwood streets, the last house next to the brick yard. The use of bloodhounds to trail offenders of the law has been approved in what is known as 'the hound dog case' Buck v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 17, 138 P.2d 115, containing a learned and historical discussion of this subject by Judge Barefoot. This opinion is in accord with the great weight of authority. In the case at bar, had the dog's trail accorded with the police's detective acumen, no doubt the dog's conduct, on a proper predicate, as defined in ...