Edwards v. State, F-80-768
| Decision Date | 24 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. F-80-768,F-80-768 |
| Parties | Audie Sinitra EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Audie Sinitra Edwards, appellant, was convicted of Rape, Second Degree in Comanche County District Court Case No. CRF-79-518. He was sentenced to three (3) years' imprisonment, and appeals. AFFIRMED.
Charles S. Rogers, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Norman, Dan R. Brown, Lawton, for appellant.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Reta M. Strubhar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of Rape in the Second Degree in Comanche County District Court Case No. CRF-79-518. He was sentenced to three (3) years' imprisonment.
The dispositive issue before this Court is whether two exhibits inadvertently taken into the jury room materially prejudiced the appellant. The two exhibits had not been introduced into evidence during the trial.
During jury deliberations, the bailiff delivered to the jury all the exhibits which had been introduced at trial. Among these exhibits were a medical report and a laboratory report which had not been admitted into evidence. Edwards' counsel learned of this occurrence after the jury had returned its verdict. Defense counsel filed a motion for new trial alleging that the appellant was prejudiced by the presence of these extrinsic materials in the jury room. The trial judge overruled the motion for new trial.
In Oklahoma the law is settled. If there is any reasonable possibility that prejudice could have resulted from the jury's examination of unadmitted evidence, the appellant should be granted a new trial. Henderson v. State, 490 P.2d 786 (Okl.Cr.1971) ; Koonce v. State, 456 P.2d 549 (Okl.Cr.1969); Cook v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 154, 241 P.2d 411 (1952); Thomas v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 414, 164 P. 995 (1917). The purpose of the rule is to protect a defendant's right of confrontation. Generally, when the trial judge rules that an exhibit is inadmissible the exhibit is not subjected to cross-examination; therefore, its consideration by the jury infringes on the defendant's right of confrontation.
In this case, we find that it was error for the court reporter to deliver the two exhibits to the jury room. However, we are unable to hold that the error was prejudicial as to require reversal. The record reveals that the information contained in the unadmitted reports was extensively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Trump v. Hott
...v. Cullen, 357 N.W.2d 24 (Iowa 1984); State v. Lott, 574 So.2d 417 (La.App.), writ denied, 580 So.2d 666 (La.1991); Edwards v. State, 637 P.2d 886 (Okla.Crim.1981); Briggs v. State, supra; State v. Hall, 40 Wash.App. 162, 697 P.2d 597 (1985); State v. Poh, supra. When considering the impact......
-
Wiser v. People
...v. State, 629 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 910, 102 S.Ct. 1760, 72 L.Ed.2d 169 (1982); Edwards v. State, 637 P.2d 886 (Okla.Crim.App.1981). We believe that the objective test of whether there is a reasonable possibility that extraneous information or influence affe......
-
Wilkerson v. Newton-Embry
...ofthe shooting while on a lunch break during deliberations. On direct appeal, the OCCA rejected this claim, citing Edwards v. State, 637 P.2d 886, 886 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981), and stating as follows:[W]e find no reasonable possibility that Juror A.'s conduct, in driving by the crime scene d......
-
Bottoson v. State
...evidence that had been properly presented to the jury at the trial. State v. Sumpter, 655 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); Edwards v. State, 637 P.2d 886 (Okl.Cr.App.1983). In this case the unadmitted exhibit that was inadvertently allowed to go into the jury room merely reproduced the testimon......