Bruce v. State, A--16947
| Decision Date | 12 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. A--16947,A--16947 |
| Citation | 492 P.2d 1120 |
| Parties | Robert Carl BRUCE, 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 |
Max Cook, Lawton, for plaintiff in error.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Sondra Leah Fogley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Robert Carl Bruce, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, for the offense of Robbery with Firearms; his punishment was fixed at ten (10) years imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
At the trial Jody Thomas testified that on the 14th day of July, 1970, he was employed at the Curt's Oil Station, located near Medicine Park, Oklahoma, and that at approximately 2:30 a.m., a car pulled into the station, and ordered one dollar's worth of gas. After putting the gasoline in the automobile, Thomas approached the driver's window, wherein a person whom he identified in court as the defendant, produced a pistol and demanded all of the money. Thomas gave the defendant approximately $25.00. He was ordered to get behind the station, and not to come out until they had left.
Deputy Lovelady testified that he went to the scene of a reported robbery, and after talking to the attendant, found a car matching the description furnished by the attendant, abandoned approximately two blocks from the service station.
Odell Inglis testified that on September 3, 1970, he was employed as a deputy sheriff of Comanche County, Oklahoma. He testified that on that date, the defendant turned himself in to the sheriff's department, wherein Inglis took him to a back office, and advised him of his 'Miranda rights.' The defendant signed a waiver of rights and subsequently gave a signed statement to the officer. The defendant stated that on the morning in question, he and two other persons borrowed a red Ford from Sammy Smith; they switched tags on the car, and proceeded to the vicinity of Curt's Service Station. They left another vehicle in the driveway a few blocks from the service station, and then Kenneth Redford went to the station, ordered one dollar's worth of gas, and robbed the attendant. After receiving the money, the attendant was told to run behind the station. They left the scene and proceeded to the location of the station wagon, wherein the Ford was left abandoned.
The defendant testified that he had a disturbed mental condition all of his life, and that his parents had tried on numerous occasions to get him to see a psychiatrist, but he refused. He started using drugs at the age of fourteen, and at that present time, he was a narcotic addict. He enlisted in the Army at age seventeen, and was advised at Ft. Riley, Kansas by an Army psychiatrist that he should be committed to a mental institution. Instead, he was sent to Viet Nam, where he served in combat for one year, winning the purple heart and the Army Commendation Medal for heroism. On the night of the robbery, he was under the influence of LSD, and had no independent recollection of what transpired. The statement he made to the deputy sheriff was based upon information furnished him by the people with whom he was involved. He testified that he turned himself in because he was tired of running, and he knew that he needed help because of his narcotic problem. He testified that he had no intent to commit the robbery.
The first proposition asserts that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial because of inflammatory remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument. The inflammatory remarks referred to were as follows:
The Record reveals and the defendant's appellate attorney concedes that the defendant did not object, nor did he request the court to admonish the jury to disregard said remarks. We have repeatedly held that counsel for a defendant must not only object to alleged improper statements of the District Attorney in his argument to the jury, but also, he must go further and move the court to exclude such remarks from the jury and the instructions, and not to consider them for any purpose; when this is not done, such remarks do not constitute reversible error, unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stover v. State, F-82-552
...that certain errors were made is not sufficient to show incompetence or inadequacy of legal representation. Id. See also, Bruce v. State, 492 P.2d 1120 (Okl.Cr.1972). We will consider each area complained of to assess adequacy. We note at the outset that appellant received a sentence of six......