Bowers v. State, F-80-282
| Decision Date | 12 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. F-80-282,F-80-282 |
| Citation | 648 P.2d 835 |
| Parties | Donald BOWERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Donald Bowers, was tried for the crime of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Laws 1976, ch. 1, § 1, now 21 O.S.1981, § 701.7, in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CRF-78-734. The jury found the appellant guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree and set punishment at fifty (50) years' imprisonment. The trial court sentenced the appellant in accordance with the jury's verdict.
On the night of November 13, 1978, the appellant, Donald Bowers, offered to give Vicky Pendry and Cretia Lynn Perrin, two employees of the Wells Fargo Bar and Restaurant, a ride home. Bowers took Ms. Pendry home first to Midwest City. The appellant and the deceased, Ms. Perrin, then went to the appellant's apartment where they argued and then left in the appellant's car. The appellant stopped the car in the area of South 104th and Peebly Road, where he and the deceased talked awhile. At that time, Ms. Perrin grabbed at the choker around the appellant's neck. He became enraged and choked her until she became unconscious. The appellant then pulled Ms. Perrin out of his car and pushed her down an embankment. The appellant stated in his confession that he did not check to see if she were alive before he pushed her down the embankment. The appellant was taken into custody and questioned about the death after it was learned that he was the last person seen with Ms. Perrin. The appellant was given the Miranda warnings twice and subsequently confessed to strangling Ms. Perrin. The appellant's confession was taped by the officers and put into evidence by the prosecutor. The appellant also signed a waiver of consent and told the officers where they could find in his apartment various personal items which belonged to the deceased.
The defense presented a psychologist as an expert witness to attempt to establish that the appellant was insane at the time he committed the criminal act.
It is first alleged that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress his oral confession. The appellant argues specifically that police "conduct, when considered in light of the defendant's personality traits and mental state" raised serious questions as to the voluntariness of this confession and further that improper Miranda warnings were given prior to his confession. We find the appellant's claims to be without merit.
Prior to the admission into evidence of the taped confession, the judge conducted an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury in accordance with Tice v. State, 478 P.2d 916 (Okl.Cr.1971). During the evidentiary hearing, counsel for the defense presented evidence of the alleged improper police conduct and the appellant's psychological background to the court for consideration. In denying the motion to suppress, the judge considered the statements presented and those given at the preliminary hearing and came to the conclusion that the appellant's confession was voluntarily made. The judge then properly allowed the issue of voluntariness to be considered by the jury. Rathbun v. State, 506 P.2d 983 (Okl.Cr.1973).
Also, a reading of the transcript shows that the appellant was advised of his Miranda warnings twice before he confessed; this when considered with the conversation which took place just prior to the appellant's confession, convinces us that there is indeed ample evidence upon which a viable waiver can be found.
Q. (by Detective Baldwin) Donald, I've told you several times that I'm Detective Baldwin, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Oklahoma City Police Department, and Detective Lewis. Okay. You're Donald Bowers, right?
A. Right.
Q. How old are you?
A. Twenty-five.
Q. Okay. Of course, you know that we are investigating into the death of Cretia Perrin, and it was reported that you were the last person to see her with (sic). And we've advised you of your Constitutional Rights. Detective Lewis here advised you of your rights and you told him that you understood what your rights were, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to tell us what happened to Cretia?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. Just go ahead and tell us.
This Court will not disturb the trial court's ruling permitting the introduction of a confession when supported by sufficient evidence that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and understood the consequences of the waiver. Cleveland v. State, 566 P.2d 144 (Okl.Cr.1977). We find sufficient evidence existed for the trial court to find that the appellant voluntarily waived his rights. Moreno v. State, 504 P.2d 1241 (Okl.Cr.1977). Therefore, this allegation of error is without merit.
The appellant alleges in his second proposition of error that he was incapable of voluntarily consenting to a search of his apartment, hence, the evidence obtained from the search of his apartment was inadmissible.
According to the transcript, when the appellant signed the consent to search form, he was able to hold coherent and rational conversations with the police officers and he was able to accurately describe where evidence could be and eventually was, found. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to support the State's claim that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search form.
The appellant relies upon the opinion of Dr. Gordon Bates, Ph.D. in psychology. Dr. Bates stated that the free will of the appellant had been broken down and overborne by the time that he signed the consent-to-search form, therefore, the appellant was incapable of giving a voluntary waiver.
As this Court stated in Coon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frederick v. State
...assert error, but to support his contentions by both argument and the citations of authorities." Bowers v. State, 1982 OK CR 103, ¶ 17, 648 P.2d 835, 838. We examine for plain error only and find no plain error or improper rulings by the trial court in the cited pages of ¶ 31 We next consid......
-
Rea v. State
...in assessing the sentence, and we find no abuse of its broad discretion on that point.1 Cf. Bowers v. State, 1982 OK CR 103, ¶ 15, 648 P.2d 835, 838 (jury's punishment assessment would not be disturbed on appeal, where jury considered evidence of defendant's diminished mental capacity in ar......
-
Bryson v. State
...correct the severance problem in the first stage and perhaps will 100 percent correct the problem." (M.Tr. 200).3 See Bowers v. State, 648 P.2d 835, 837 (Okl.Cr.1982) quoting Dare v. State, 378 P.2d 339, 346 (Okl.Cr.1963) the testimony of expert witnesses is not conclusive on the issue of m......
-
McGregor v. State
...(Okl.Cr.1987).15 Ballou v. State, 694 P.2d 949, 951-52 (Okl.Cr.1985); Smith v. State, 646 P.2d 1285, 1287 (Okl.Cr.1982); Bowers v. State, 648 P.2d 835, 836 (Okl.Cr.1982).16 See, e.g., Brewer v. State, 718 P.2d 354, 360-61 (Okl.Cr.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 870, 107 S.Ct. 245, 93 L.Ed.2d 1......