Brooks v. State

Decision Date21 February 1968
Docket NumberNo. A--14040,A--14040
Citation438 P.2d 25
PartiesKenneth Lee BROOKS, 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
MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

Kenneth Lee Brooks, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information, along with one Patricia DeAnn Williamson, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, with the crime of Illegal Possession of Narcotic Drugs. The more specific allegation of the Information was that on September 14, 1963, the defendant and his companion, had fifteen morphine tablets in their possession and under their control.

The charges were dismissed as to the defendant's co-defendant and the defendant came on for trial by a jury on December 6, 1965. On December 7th the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the Information and assessing his punishment at imprisonment for five years in the state penitentiary. The trial court overruled defendant's Motion for New Trial on December 21, 1965, and on that same date entered judgment and sentence in accordance withthe verdict of the jury. The defendant was permitted to appeal as a pauper after his retained trial attorney was permitted to withdraw as counsel of record following the trial. The public defender was appointed by the trial court to lodge the appeal in this Court. Same was not lodged within the time provided by law, but this Court, for good cause shown, has permitted a delayed appeal of the conviction and sentence.

For the purposes of this appeal we need be concerned only with the testimony of Jerry Legg, the arresting officer, and Jon Reininger, at the time a chemist for the State Bureau of Investigation, who analyzed the tablets used as evidence against the defendant at trial.

The officer testified that at about 1:45 p.m. on the date in question, he was on duty as a patrolman with the Oklahoma City Police Department and was cruising in the 1200 block of Northwest 8th Street. He noticed the defendant and a female companion walking down the driveway of a residence in this block and he further noticed the defendant, upon seeing the police car, throw an article to the ground. The officer got out of his patrol car and talked with the two subjects briefly, at which time he observed a small cellophane package on the ground, same containing tablets which to him, from his past experience and training, appeared to be morphine tablets. The officer did not question the subjects further, nor did he retrieve the package from the ground at that time. Instead, he got back into his car and drove around the block. When he came back around the block he observed the woman get out of a car being driven by the defendant and go and pick up the cellophane package from the sidewalk. Upon seeing the officer approach again, the woman threw the package beneath another car. The officer retrieved the same and placed the defendant and the woman under arrest and brought them to the police station.

Later it was determined that said cellophane package contained about fifteen tablets of some kind. These were taken to the chemist, Jon Reininger, to be analyzed, and his testimony will appear more fully later as part of one of the questions with which this appeal is concerned.

This was the State's case. The defendant did not elect to take the stand or to present any evidence. He rested his case at the time the State rested, after demurring to the State's evidence.

As his first assignment of error, defendant urges that the evidence was insufficient to establish the substance as a narcotic. In this connection he complains of the testimony of Jon Reininger, state chemist, appearing at pages 22--23 of the casemade:

'A. Officer Mize and Smith came to my laboratory at 3400 North Eastern on September 19, 1963, shortly before noon, as I remember, I'm not sure about the time, but I think shortly noon, and they had in their possession a brown manila envelope containing some 13 or 15 tablets that they wanted tested.

Q. All right, sir. Did you receive those tablets?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you submit them to a chemical test for the purpose...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Caldera
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 1992
    ...55, 468 N.E.2d 353, 355 (1983) (random testing of 5 out of 10 tablets sufficient to find all 10 tablets were LSD); Brooks v. State, 438 P.2d 25, 27 (Okla.Crim.App.1968) (random testing of one out of 13-15 tablets sufficient to find all tablets morphine under the circumstances); Commonwealth......
  • State v. Jovenal
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 1977
    ...P.2d 1136 (1976); Johnson v. State, 343 So.2d 110 (Fla.App.1977); State v. Holmes, 22 Or.App. 23, 537 P.2d 566 (1975); Brooks v. State, 438 P.2d 25 (Okl.Cr.App.1968); People v. Gin Hauk Jue, 93 Cal.App.2d 72, 208 P.2d 717 (1949); State v. Thomas, 329 So.2d 704 (La.1976). Cf. State v. Saiz, ......
  • State v. Baca
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 28, 1970
    ...concluded it was morphine.' This was sufficient identification that the substance sold by defendant was morphine. Compare Brooks v. State, 438 P.2d 25 (Okl.Crim.1968). Right to The issue of the lack of opportunity for cross-examination is raised for the first time on appeal. At trial, after......
  • State v. Shepherd
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1976
    ...value of such evidence is obvious. The addiction was a circumstance tending to connect appellant with the heroin. Cf., Brooks v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 25 (1968). The desired inference was rendered more A similar fact situation occurred in People v. Gin Hauk Jue, 93 Cal.App.2d 72, 208 P.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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