Cooper v. State, F-82-199
| Decision Date | 04 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. F-82-199,F-82-199 |
| Citation | 661 P.2d 905 |
| Parties | Robert Lynn COOPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Johnny Robert Collings disappeared on the 28th day of November, 1966. His dismembered body was recovered from a frozen creek near Apache, Oklahoma, on December 24 and 25, 1966. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was four .22 caliber bullet wounds to the head. Despite an immediate investigation, no charges were filed for some fourteen years. However, on the first day of October, 1981, Robert Lynn Cooper was convicted of first degree murder in the case and sentenced to life imprisonment.
As his first proposition of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence two photographs of the corpse. One such photograph is a black and white snapshot of the back of the severed head. The object is largely an undifferentiated mass of black hair. The second photograph is an 8 X 10 inch black and white picture of the remainder of the corpse, the nine or so pieces placed in roughly correct relative position on the examining table.
In cases where the photographs in question depict a gruesome scene, the trial court must consider whether the probative value of the particular photograph outweighs the prejudice potentially accompanying its admission, and this Court will not interfere with the ruling unless it appears that the trial court abused its discretion. Riggle v. State, 585 P.2d 1382 (Okl.Cr.1978). In this case, the photographs were admissible as showing the suppression or destruction of evidence, see generally Wills v. State, 636 P.2d 372 (Okl.Cr.1981), as confirming partially the confession allegedly given by appellant to a witness, Jerry Geionety, and as illustrating and corroborating oral testimony in the case. The photos also showed the condition of the body at the time of post-mortem examination, thus explaining the difficulty encountered by doctors in fixing the exact time of death, an issue emphasized by the defense at trial. The first proposition is therefore without merit.
Appellant's second proposition of error is that he was denied due process by the fact that a witness was allowed to invoke the attorney-client privilege. A key state witness, Jerry Geionety, died prior to trial. The defense stipulated that the preliminary hearing testimony of the witness could be read into evidence at trial. During the defense case-in-chief, an attorney who represented the deceased during the initial investigation of the murder was called to the stand, and appellant sought to examine him as to statements made by the deceased concerning the murder. The trial court sustained the attorney's claim of privilege.
Appellant's suggestion that the privilege could not be invoked due to the death of the client is without merit. The privilege may be claimed by "the personal representative of a deceased client", and the attorney or attorney's representative "is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege" on behalf of the client. 12 O.S.1981, § 2502(C).
Appellant's Sixth and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilson v. State
...right to compulsory process does not negate traditional testimonial privileges such as the attorney-client privilege." Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905, 907 (Okl.Cr.1983), citing Washington v. State of Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 n. 21 (1967). Appellant has fai......
-
Sealed Case, In re
...Jury Investigation, 562 N.E.2d at 72; People v. Modzelewski, 203 A.D.2d 594, 611 N.Y.S.2d 22, 23 (N.Y.App.Div.1994); Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905, 907 (Okla.Cr.App.1983); State v. Doster, 276 S.C. 647, 284 S.E.2d 218, 219 (1981); see also 8 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 2323 & n.2 (citing additional......
-
Stout v. State
...This Court will not interfere with the trial court's determination on this issue unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905 (Okl.Cr.1983). During pre-trial, the judge reviewed numerous photographs offered by the State and deleted those that were more gruesome or m......
-
Smith v. State
...was secondary to their evidentiary worth. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the trial court's rulings. Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905 (Okl.Cr.1983). Compare Newbury v. State, 695 P.2d 531 (Okl.Cr.1985) (photographs admissible to prove State's theory that defendant struck victim......
-
Two Rights Collide: Determining When Attorney-Client Privilege Should Yield to a Defendant’s Right to Compulsory Process or Confrontation
...Process Clause because “the Sixth Amendment usually has been forced to yield when a testimonial privilege is asserted”); Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905, 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983) (“[T]he right to compulsory process does not negate traditional testimonial privileges such as the attorney-cli......
-
Dead men's lawyers tell no tales: the attorney-client privilege survives death.
...(207) Id. (208) Arizona v. Macumber, 544 P.2d 1084 (Ariz. 1976); People v. Pena, 198 Cal. Rptr. 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984); Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905 (Okla. Crim. App. (209) 544 P.2d 1084 (Ariz. 1976). (210) Id. at 1086. (211) Id. (212) Cooper v. State, 661 P. 2d 906, 907 (Okla. Crim. App......