Chandler v. State, F-77-227
| Decision Date | 28 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-227,F-77-227 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 285 |
| Parties | Cole Anthony CHANDLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Cole Anthony Chandler, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted upon trial by jury in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-76-1296, for the offense of Child Beating, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 843. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed punishment at a term of ten (10) years. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
We deem it unnecessary to recite the facts of this case inasmuch as the case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
As his first assignment of error, the defendant alleges that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to elicit testimony of evidence of bad character and other crimes which irreparably prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial. We find that this contention has a great deal of merit. Some of the more flagrant examples of this type of evidence are as follows:
(MS. POST) "Cameron was taking a bath and he was crying and stuff so Cole took him out of the bathtub and spanked him on the bottom and he left handprints.
(MR. GEB) "Q. Was Cole striking (sic) at that time?
And finally, at pages 95-97 of the transcript, we find the following:
"Q. (By Mr. Geb) Do you know anything about the relationship between your ex-husband which is your present husband now, isn't it?
(MS. POST) "A. Uhuh.
You may answer the question.
This Court has held on many occasions that with certain exceptions, evidence of other crimes is inadmissible. Further, if that evidence is admitted over the objections of the defendant and is prejudicial to that defendant, then the same is cause for reversal. We have carefully studied the record in this case in light of our ruling in Dooley v. State, Okl.Cr., 484 P.2d 1324 (1971) and Hall v. State, Okl.Cr., 528 P.2d 1117 (1974). In these cases, this Court has consistently held that evidence of other crimes may be admissible if they go to show (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of accident, (4) identity of the accused, (5) common scheme or plan. However, in the cases cited, supra, we clearly stated that such evidence must have a direct causal connection with the case at bar.
In the instant case the admission of the defendant's actions against his wife and threats against third parties into evidence, is error since the same are not connected with the crime charged. There is a complete lack of evidence as to the date, time and place of these occurrences. The jury had no way of knowing if they occurred months, weeks, days or hours prior to the present offense.
For his second assignment of error the defendant urges that the trial court erred in the admission of certain hearsay testimony which was highly prejudicial.
The testimony is reflected in the transcript at pages 53 and 54 of the trial proceedings, as follows:
The testimony elicited from Officer Cook contained more than one instance of hearsay; particularly that testimony concerning his conversation with the child's mother. Although it appears in the above passage that the defendant was present when she made the reported statements incriminating him, the record reveals that in reality he was not present.
The Attorney General, in his brief, makes a lengthy argument that the above cited testimony was admissible under the "res gestae" exception to the rule. However, the record clearly indicates that this conversation took place not during, or immediately after, the offense, but instead, during the investigation conducted by the officer who testified. Coupled with the fact that the person who made the statement was initially charged with the offense. It makes the hearsay testimony so questionable as to have little, if no, probative value.
For his third assignment of error, the defendant urges that the conduct of the prosecutor was such as to prejudice the rights of the defendant. More specifically, the defendant points to certain statements made during closing arguments. The exact argument objected to by the defendant is found at pages 108 through 110 of the transcript, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stephens
...that included prosecutor's argument to jury suggesting that defense counsel lacked confidence in his client's case); Chandler v. State, 572 P.2d 285 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977) (conviction reversed—prosecutor's argument to jury suggesting that defense counsel had no opinion about his client's gui......
-
Burks v. State
...Hauschildt v. State, Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 77 (1976); Atnip v. State, supra; Oliver v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1327 (1977); Chandler v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 285 (1977); Breshers v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 561 (1977); Galindo v. State, Okl.Cr., 573 P.2d 1217 (1978); and, Robinson v. State,......
-
Maxville v. State
...law it does not rise to the level of prejudicial error either alone or in conjunction with the other alleged errors. See Chandler v. State, 572 P.2d 285 (Okl.Cr.1977). IV. As this fourth proposition, the appellant asserts that the prosecutor committed reversible error by impeaching the appe......
-
Spees v. State, F-84-695
...how the victim must have felt about losing his business. See Williams v. State, 658 P.2d 499 (Okl.Cr.1983); and Chandler v. State, 572 P.2d 285 (Okl.Cr.1977). Finally, the prosecutor improperly accused defense counsel of trying to mislead the jury. During final argument, the prosecutor stat......