Brooks v. State, F-84-73

• Decision Date: 11 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. F-84-73,F-84-73
• Citation: 714 P.2d 217
• Parties: Albert Lee BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 217

714 P.2d 217

Albert Lee BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-84-73.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 11, 1986.

E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Albert Lee Brooks, was convicted of Knowingly Concealing and Withholding Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies, in Comanche County District Court, Case No. CRF-83-3, was sentenced to twenty (20) years' imprisonment, and he appeals.

On December 24, 1982, the home of Gaston Yarbor was burglarized, and several suitcases containing costume jewelry were taken. One suitcase had the name "Sergeant Seltzer" stamped on it.

On December 31, 1982, Andrew Jackson, appellant's brother-in-law, contacted the Lawton Police Department and gave them more than forty (40) rings he found in the appellant's shoulder bag. As a result, the appellant was arrested, several rings were removed from his fingers, which were later identified by Mr. Yarbor, and a suitcase with the inscription "Sergeant Seltzer" was found at appellant's residence. Jackson subsequently testified, at trial, that the appellant told him the rings were stolen and that he notified the police the day he found out they were stolen, yet, at the preliminary hearing he said he had known they were stolen for about two weeks. Idell Reed, appellant's mother-in-law, testified that the appellant and two of his friends brought several suitcases into his residence; that appellant told her the rings were stolen; and that she related the information to the police, although the police did not have her statement in their police report. The appellant testified that he purchased the rings from two men at a convenience store, who needed gas money; that the men told him the rings were not stolen; that he did not tell either Reed or Jackson that the rings were stolen; and that his in-laws fabricated the story to get him out of the house because he was having marital problems.

I

In his first assignment of error, appellant alleges that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had the requisite knowledge to sustain a conviction because the testimony of Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Reed, that appellant told them the rings were stolen, is erroneously admitted hearsay and because there were inconsistencies in the testimony of all the State's witnesses. We disagree.

Initially, we find that the appellant failed to object, at trial, to the testimony of Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Reed, and thus has waived his right to object on appeal. Johnston v. State, 555 P.2d 629 (Okl.Cr.1976). Furthermore, the testimony complained of is an admission by a party opponent and is therefore excluded from the category of hearsay. See, 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(4)(b)(1).

When the sufficiency of the evidence at trial is challenged on appeal, the proper test is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985). The essential elements of the crime of Knowingly Concealing and Withholding Stolen Property are knowledge that the property was stolen and the act of concealing the property from the rightful owner. Fields v. State, 666 P.2d 1301 (Okl.Cr.1983). The State is not required to prove that an accused had...