Evans v. State, M--75--350
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | BUSSEY; BRETT, P.J., and BLISS |
| Citation | 546 P.2d 284 |
| Parties | Larry Don EVANS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. M--75--350,M--75--350 |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1976 |
Page 284
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Gillespie, Perry & Gentry by William E. Gentry, Hobart, for appellant.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., James L. Swartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Doug Combs, Legal Intern, for appellee.
BUSSEY, Judge.
Appellant, Larry Don Evans, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Caddo County, Case No. CRM--74--681, for the offense of Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 540A. The jury fixed his punishment at ninety (90) days' imprisonment in the county jail and a fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), and from said judgment and sentence an appeal has been perfected to this Court.
As this case requires reversal, a statement of the facts adduced upon trial is unnecessary. We need only observe that the testimony of the two witnesses for the State was in direct conflict with that of the defendant and the cumulative testimony of other witnesses appearing in his behalf, and that the verdict of the jury was not unanimous.
In his brief the defendant presents several assignments of error, however, we shall discuss only that assignment necessitating a new trial of this case. In his third assignment of error the defendant contends
Page 285
that the prosecuting attorney made improper and prejudicial remarks during closing argument which sigularly or cumulatively constitute reversible error. This assignment of error is predicated upon some eight assertedly improper and prejudicial remarks, but as to many of these comments the defendant failed to properly preserve any error for review on appeal and others were not improper or prejudicial. However, the trial court overruled the defendant's objection and request for admonishment made immediately after the prosecutor terminated his closing argument as follows:'Instructions also state that any five of you may return a verdict, it does not have to unanimous; that's what it says. But I don't think that five . . . six reasonable people sitting there are going to have to reduce their number to five, to find this defendant guilty of what he is charged with. The offense, the Officers testified to it, it's there and they have no reason to lie about this, none. On the other hand, you've got the defendant himself, and you've got his sister, his girl friend, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ake v. State, F-80-523
...(Okl.Cr.1976). In addition, the authority cited by the appellant in support of his argument are clearly inapplicable. See, Evans v. State, 546 P.2d 284 (Okl.Cr.1976) (wherein the prosecutor stated, "And I think you'll return a verdict of guilty because that's what I think he The prosecutor ......
-
A.O. v. State, J-2018-1066
...See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19, 105 S. Ct 1038, 1048, 84 L. Ed. 2d 1, 14 (1985) ; Evans v. State , 1976 OK CR 38, ¶ 3, 546 P.2d 284, 285. The objectionable comments made in both Evans and Young were made by prosecutors to a jury during closing remarks. In this case the commen......
-
Wright v. State, F-79-233
...his personal opinion regarding the guilt of the appellant when he stated the following, despite this Court's ruling in Evans v. State, 546 P.2d 284 ... I look pretty young and I haven't been at this game that long, but I have been in it long enough to know what the difference is between a b......