Burks v. State, F-77-55
| Decision Date | 07 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-55,F-77-55 |
| Citation | 568 P.2d 1311 |
| Parties | Samuel Rayfael BURKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Samuel Rayfael Burks, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information in Case No. CRF-75-384, with the crime of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, pursuant to 47 O.S.1971, § 4-102, in the District Court, Washington County, State of Oklahoma. After a bifurcated jury trial in which the jury found defendant guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, After Former Conviction of a Felony, punishment was set at nine (9) years in the custody of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma. On the 28th day of July, 1976, the trial court pronounced judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict of the jury. From said judgment and sentence the defendant has perfected this timely appeal.
The facts in this case presented by the State in support of its case in chief are identical to the ones reported by this Court in Agee v. State, Okl.Cr., 562 P.2d 913 (1977), wherein the co-defendant was tried and convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree. Therefore, a very brief statement of the facts is necessary.
At the trial, the State produced testimony from law enforcement officers who testified that while searching in an area near Copan, Oklahoma in Washington County, for two men they discovered that a home belonging to a Mr. and Mrs. Jeter had been burglarized and that their 1972 Chevrolet Nova was missing. The fact of the missing automobile was transmitted by police radio to northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas.
A few hours later the stolen automobile was observed by local authorities in Coffeyville, Kansas. A Kansas Deputy Sheriff followed the automobile to where the defendant parked the same, emerged, and walked to the bus station. The defendant was ultimately arrested at the bus station by yet another Kansas police officer.
The Jeters were then summoned to the Coffeyville Kansas Police Department where they identified their automobile, items taken from their home, and stated that the house had been securely locked and that the extra set of keys were located in one of the bedrooms of the home.
The chain of custody of the items introduced into evidence was adequately established by various Oklahoma and Kansas police officers. The defendant in the instant case was identified by several witnesses as being an occupant of the stolen car in both Oklahoma and Kansas.
After this evidence, the State rested.
The defendant declined to make an opening statement or present any evidence, and rested.
For his first assignment of error the defendant urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, testimony from which the jury could infer that the defendant had been involved in, or implicated with, other crimes or criminal acts in addition to the offense charged. More specifically, the defendant objects to the opening statement made by the prosecutor and to subsequent evidence which he urges and implies that defendant was not only involved in the instant crime but was also involved in a burglary and was the subject of a search.
While this Court will guard zealously the defendant's right to be tried only for the crime charged, we do not find that the argument and evidence submitted in this case requires either reversal or modification.
A careful examination of the record reveals that there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could draw the inference that this defendant was involved in a burglary. However, it should be quickly noted that this evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing how the defendant could have obtained the keys to the automobile in question. The evidence concerning the method of obtaining the car keys was relevant and had probative value. In Johnson v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 270, 106 P.2d 149 (1940) this Court stated:
Going directly to the point of res gestae we stated in McGlockin v. State, Okl.Cr., 516 P.2d 1357 (1973), that:
And finally in Songer v. State, Okl.Cr., 464 P.2d 763 (1969), this Court laid down a five way test for the admissibility of such evidence. In that case we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...We first note that Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979), is inapplicable here because the appellant's trial was prior to the Burks decision. Prior to Burks, the failure to give a limiting instruction was not reversible error if no instruction was requested. Barnhart v. State, Okl.Cr......
-
Frye v. State
...so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other. Galindo v. State, Okl.Cr., 573 P.2d 1217 (1978); Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1311 (1977). The appellants argue that adultery is not similar to murder and does not come within the exception. This is an incorrect W......
-
Clay v. State
...Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Delaune v. State, Okl.Cr., 569 P.2d 463 (1977) and Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1311 (1977). Further, this Court has repeatedly held that the statutory prohibition on multiple punishment of the same act or omission, 21 ......
-
Marks v. State
...the second crime is made to depend upon the perpetration of the first. We were faced with a similar factual situation in Burks v. State, 568 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr.App.1977). In that case the defendant was convicted for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. On appeal, the defendant cited as e......