Bruton v. State, F--73--339
| Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. F--73--339,F--73--339 |
| Citation | 521 P.2d 1382 |
| Parties | Lee H. BRUTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Lee H. Bruton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court, Comanche County, Case No. CRF--72--662, for the offense of Unlawful Delivery and Distribution of Heroin; he was sentenced to serve a term of ten (10) years imprisonment and pay a fine of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Simply stated, the facts are that on July 15, 1972, the defendant was at that time enlisted in the Army, stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. At around 9:00 p.m., in the Spot Lounge, a local bar in Lawton, Oklahoma, the defendant was approached by Gary Allen Lawrence, a special agent of the C.I.D. Command of the United States Army. The sale took place in the restroom of said Spot Lounge, at which time Special Agent Lawrence purchased .05 grams of what was later determined to be heroin. The defendant did not deny the transaction took place.
For his first proposition of error, the defendant urges that he was prejudiced by the fact that the trial court admitted testimony as to other offenses for which the defendant was not on trial. We would direct counsel for the defense to the trial transcript at page 94 where he inquires, on direct examination, as to whether the defendant had been arrested, charged, or convicted of a felony, or whether he had ever sold narcotics. The defendant answered in the negative to this area of inquiry. This area of inquiry being opened on direct examination, it was well within the discretionary scope of cross-examination for the State to inquire about an alleged arrest for possession of 1000 amphetamine tablets. The State, in its cross-examination, should be able to direct its questions to areas which reasonably tend to explain, contradict, or discredit any testimony given by a witness in his testimony in chief, or which tend to test the witness' accuracy memory, character, veracity or credibility. See Leeper v. United States, 10 Cir., 446 F.2d 281, cert. denied 404 U.S. 1021, 92 S.Ct. 695, 30 L.Ed.2d 671 (1971). Thus, we feel that the question was invited by the defense counsel himself so that after thus opening the door on direct, he cannot be heard to complain about what comes in through such door. See Kennedy v. State, Okl.Cr., 400 P.2d 461 (1965). We, therefore, find this proposition to be without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ake v. State
...before the trial court, is likewise not properly before this Court. See, Irvin v. State, 617 P.2d 588 (Okl.Cr.1980); Bruton v. State, 521 P.2d 1382 (Okl.Cr.1974); Adams v. State, 25 Okl.Cr. 298, 220 P. 59 (1923). The motion was properly overruled. The appellant next alleges that the trial c......
-
Shultz v. State, F-89-416
...was denied, in part, for failure to supply the required affidavits. This was well within the trial court's discretion. Burton v. State, 521 P.2d 1382, 1384 (Okl.Cr.1974). There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused can receive a fair trial in the county in which the offense occurred ......
-
Avey v. State
...(Okl.Cr.1983); Ferguson v. State, 645 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Okl.Cr.1982); Hickman v. State, 626 P.2d 873, 876 (Okl.Cr.1981); Bruton v. State, 521 P.2d 1382, 1384 (Okl.Cr.1974). In his last assignment of error, Mr. Avey contends that his sentence must be modified on the ground that the unreported......
-
Gee v. State
...is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court.' In Nachtrieb v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 597 (1973) and Bruton v. State, Okl.Cr., 521 P.2d 1382 (1974), this Court held that if the sentence is within the range provided by law it is not Defendant further submits that two evidentiary......