Clark v. State

Decision Date02 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. F-82-434,F-82-434
Citation664 P.2d 1065
PartiesGregory Dean CLARK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Gregory Dean Clark, was convicted in Greer County District Court, Case No. CRF-81-14, of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony, was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment, and he appeals.

In his first assignment of error, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to sustain his motion for a directed verdict due to insufficiency of the evidence. Briefly stated, the pertinent facts of this case are that Bobby Ray Curtis, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, testified that on April 30, 1981, just before noon, he was stabbed by two other inmates, one of whom he positively identified at trial as the appellant, Clark. Curtis related that Clark was of the belief that he had "snitched" on him, by informing the authorities that Clark had made some 18 gallons of home brewed beer, and, in order to "take care" of the matter, Clark "shanked" him, with the assistance of two other inmates, Lee Stanton and Larry Patterson. Further, Curtis stated that he saw Clark and Stanton running in a southerly direction after they had "shanked" him.

James K. Poff, a prison guard who was stationed in Tower Number 4 at the time the incident occurred, testified that he was alerted to a disturbance on the prison yard and observed the wounded Curtis. Further, he saw two inmates "duck around" the prison's laundry which is located south of the place where the victim was stabbed. Poff blew his whistle and fired his rifle twice into the air to alert other guards to the trouble in the prison yard.

Another guard, Doyle Stoup, stated that as he responded to the sounding of the alarm by Tower 4, he saw two inmates come around the corner of the laundry, and at trial he identified the appellant as one of them. Furthermore, he observed Clark enter the prison's mess hall.

Additionally, two knives that had been sharpened on both sides were found along the route that Clark and Stanton were observed to have taken. A State's chemist identified stains found on the knives as human blood.

Also, inmate Robert Kelsey testified that the appellant had approached him between 7:00 and 7:30 A.M. on April 30, 1981, and had asked if he could help him get a couple of knives. Kelsey stated that State's Exhibit No. 2 looked like the knife he helped the appellant acquire. Furthermore, Kelsey testified regarding the particulars of the "shanking" of Curtis, which he stated were the subject of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 6, 2013
    ...evidence; either, or any combination of the two, may be sufficient to support a conviction. Clark v. State, 1983 OK CR 79, ¶ 8, 664 P.2d 1065, 1066; OUJI–CR(2nd) No. 9–4. The jury may consider all competent evidence, along with [the] rules of law and basic common sense, in reaching a verdic......
  • Dodd v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • October 21, 2004
    ...evidence; either, or any combination of the two, may be sufficient to support a conviction. Clark v. State, 1983 OK CR 79, ¶ 8, 664 P.2d 1065, 1066; OUJI-CR (2nd) No. 9-4. Rarely, if ever, is the State's case against a criminal defendant entirely direct or entirely circumstantial. Regardles......
  • Pavatt v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 8, 2007
    ...evidence; either, or any combination of the two, may be sufficient to support a conviction. Clark v. State, 1983 OK CR 79, ¶ 8, 664 P.2d 1065, 1066; OUJI-CR (2nd) No. 9-4. The jury may consider all competent evidence, along with rules of law and basic common sense, in reaching a ¶ 37 Althou......
  • Williams v. State, F-83-762
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 24, 1985
    ...that test being satisfied, all questions of fact are for the jury to resolve and we will not interfere with that verdict. Clark v. State, 664 P.2d 1065 (Okl.Cr.1983). Finally, concerning the refusal to instruct the jury, we must first note that the appellant failed to submit a written reque......
  • 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