Edwards v. State, F-81-340
| Decision Date | 20 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. F-81-340,F-81-340 |
| Parties | Martin Shane EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Martin Shane Edwards, appellant, was convicted in the District Court of Lincoln County, Case No. CRF-80-99, for the crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and he appeals. AFFIRMED.
Larry Lenora, Erwin, Butts & Lenora, Chandler, for appellant.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Appellate Crim. Div., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
Martin Shane Edwards was convicted of Manslaughter in the First Degree, in the District Court of Lincoln County, Case No. CRF-80-99. He now appeals the sentence imposed of life imprisonment.
On June 21, 1980, witnesses Jim Waddell and Dale Morris Clark held a party at their house in Meeker, Oklahoma, which lasted all night and into the next morning. At approximately 7:30 a.m. on June 22, 1980, Donald Ray Mounds, the victim, was being assisted by several witnesses in removing a motorcycle from his truck when he was stabbed once in the chest. Witness Dale Morris Clark testified that he saw the appellant stab the victim in the chest. Witnesses Clark, Waddell, Carl Owens and Bill Harwood testified that they heard the deceased say "Oh my God what did you do that for?" as he staggered away from the appellant. The appellant testified that he had no recollection of stabbing the victim.
In his first assignment of error, the appellant alleges that the magistrate erred by overruling his motion to reduce the charge of murder in the first degree to manslaughter in the first degree at the preliminary hearing. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to warrant the murder in the first degree charge. However, a preliminary hearing before a magistrate does not require evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction, must show only that an offense has been committed and there is reason to believe the accussed committed the offense. Hedgepath v. State, 600 P.2d 348 (Okl.Cr.1979). The preliminary hearing transcript reveals that the magistrate properly found sufficient evidence to bind the appellant over for trial on a charge of first degree murder. Sexson v. State, 620 P.2d 1326 (Okl.Cr.1980). Therefore appellant's first assignment of error is without merit.
In his second assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court erred by overruling his motion for directed verdict at the close of the State's evidence. Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence presented to prove murder in the first degree. However, the right to challenge a ruling on a demurrer to the evidence is waived on appeal when, as here, the accused goes forward and offers evidence in the defense case in chief. Shockey v. State, 524 P.2d 33 (Okl.Cr.1974). Further, arguments concerning first degree murder are unavailable to the appellant since the jury convicted the appellant of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. Morrison v. State, 628 P.2d 381 (Okl.Cr.1981). This assignment of error is without merit.
In his third assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on murder in the first degree. We note that appellant did not object at trial to the court's instructions and did not preserve this assignment of error in his motion for new trial or petition in error. Maghe v. State, 620 P.2d 433 (Okl.Cr.1980). Therefore this assignment of error is waived and without merit.
In his fourth assignment of error, appellant alleges that his constitutional due process and equal protection rights were infringed by the trial court's order setting felony cases for pretrial and trial docket. 1 Specifically appellant alleges that the order effectively denied him the right to file any motions after a specific date which was thirteen (13) days prior to trial and denied him the right to plea bargain in good faith prior to trial. Initially we note that this assignment of error was not properly preserved in the motion for new trial. Hawkins v. State, 569 P.2d 490 (Okl.Cr.1977). Further, appellant has failed to allege or demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the order. This assignment of error is without merit.
In his fifth assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant's expert witness, Dr. Walter Bowlan to testify as to his opinion of appellant's sanity during the commission of the crime. During an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of Dr. Bowlan's testimony, Dr. Bowlan testified that in his opinion the appellant was temporarily insane at the time of the homicide due to the voluntary consumption 2 of drugs, specifically, LSD, speed, and qualudes over a 24 hour period. 3
In the recent case of Jones v. State, 648 P.2d 1251 (Okl.Cr.1982), we said that voluntary intoxication is no defense to a crime except to the extent that the intoxication rendered the defendant incapable of forming the necessary mental element. We further said:
To constitute insanity caused by intoxication, whether alcohol or drug induced, it must be caused from prolonged use of the intoxicant resulting in a fixed state of mental disease or defect; not merely a temporary mental condition existing during commission of the crime. The determination as to whether the prolonged use of the intoxicant has caused a fixed mental disorder is a question of fact for the jury. (at 1255)
In the instant case, the transcript reveals that the appellant did not contend that he was suffering from a mental disorder due to prolonged drug use, and further, Dr. Bowan testified that appellant's pshychotic state of mind was temporary.
While voluntary intoxication is not a complete defense to criminal cupability, it may be considered in determining whether the accused possessed the requisite criminal intent during the commission of the crime. Jones, supra. At trial, convincing evidence was introduced that intoxication rendered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bosse v. State, D–2012–1128
...to include or exempt witnesses from the rule of sequestration is within the trial court's discretion. 12 O.S.2011, § 2615 ; Edwards v. State , 1982 OK CR 204, ¶ 12, 655 P.2d 1048, 1051–52. The rule is intended to guard against the possibility that a witness's testimony might be tainted or m......
-
Slaughter v. State
...punishment. He did not advance the argument he now advances. Accordingly, he has waived it for review on appeal. Edwards v. State, 655 P.2d 1048, 1050 (Okl.Cr.1982); Tubbs v. State, 631 P.2d 758, 759 is unconstitutional under the Oklahoma Constitution. Citing Article 2, § 2 of the Constitut......
-
Dutton v. Brown
...to allow or exclude the testimony of such a witness." Mayes v. State, 560 P.2d 574, 577 (Okla.Crim.App.1976); Edwards v. State, 655 P.2d 1048, 1051-52 (Okla.Crim.App.1982). In the sentencing phase of a death penalty case, evidentiary rules "may not be applied mechanistically...." Green v. G......
-
Fitzgerald v. State
...assistance. Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83, 105 S.Ct. at 1096. Dr. Taylor was not the appropriate expert in this case.31 Edwards v. State, 1982 OK CR 204, 655 P.2d 1048, 1051; Jones v. State, 1982 OK CR 112, 648 P.2d 1251, 1255, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1155, 103 S.Ct. 799, 74 L.Ed.2d 1002 (1983).32 ......