Ezell v. State

• Decision Date: 29 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. A--15583,A--15583
• Citation: 489 P.2d 781
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Parties: Rickey Larosa EZELL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

Page 781

489 P.2d 781

Rickey Larosa EZELL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A--15583.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 29, 1971.

As Corrected Oct. 5, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Ordinarily, confessions of defendant 17 and 18 years of age (defendant in instant case was 16) accused of burglary, are inadmissible in evidence where there is absence of parents or guardian, or counsel, since such defendant should be deemed incapable of waiving the constitutional and statutory safeguards provided by law in a criminal case, unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor defendant fully understood the effect and the results growing out of such waiver.

2. The constitution affords no right to the presence of anyone other than a lawyer trained to protect the legal rights of those accused, while the presence or absence of a parent or responsible adult may be a factor affecting the voluntariness of a confession, there is no constitutional right to the presence of a parent. We find that the Escobedo doctrine is not applicable to a request for anyone other than an attorney.

An appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Merle Lansden, Judge.

Rickey Larosa Ezell was convicted of the crime of Murder; sentenced to Life Imprisonment; and appeals. Charge reduced to manslaughter; judgment and sentence reduced to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment; and as so modified, otherwise affirmed.

Don Anderson, Public Defender, Oklahoma County, Arnold T. Fleig, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Odie A. Nance, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge:

Rickey Larosa Ezell, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the offense of Murder, with punishment set at Life imprisonment; and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Briefly stated, the evidence at the trial adduced that the defendant, age 16, fired a shotgun that killed Henry Watts on May 17, 1969. Gale Bennett, Charles Green, and Rickey Hooks testified that they were at the scene and described various fights prior to the homicide. They observed the decedent running toward the defendant, and heard a shot. Watts fell to the ground, and the defendant ran--carrying a sawed-off shotgun. The witness Hooks heard the defendant yell 'halt' and observed something shiny prior to the shot.

Officer Acox arrested the defendant and testified that after being advised of his rights in the presence of his mother and legal guardian; the defendant, his mother and legal guardian signed a waiver of rights and the defendant made a statement that he was holding the gun and pointed it at Watts who was pursuing him and the gun went off accidentally. The written waiver was not offered as evidence.

Benjamin Davis testified that the gun involved was his sister's, and after the shooting the defendant put the gun in his car. He became frightened and dismantled the gun and threw the pieces away. Davis observed what he thought was a knife in Watts' hand as he was running toward the defendant just prior to the shot.

Leon McHenry testified for the defense that Watts was chasing the defendant with what appeared to be a knife and the defendant told him to 'halt' prior to the shot.

Victor Little, the defendant's brother, also saw the deceased run toward the defendant who was yelling for him to 'halt'.

The defendant testified in his own behalf that Watts started running toward him with what he thought was a knife; he told him to 'halt', he backed up and pulled the trigger just before Watts got to him.

Ronald McKinney testified for the state in rebuttal that he was assigned to the park as a police officer. He heard a shot and observed Watts lying on the ground. He did not see a knife in Watts' hand, or in the immediate vicinity.

The defendant was represented by the Public Defender's Offic, who now offers as their chief assignment of error that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant's objection, the statement defendant made to the police at 12:30 A.M. He contends that defendant was 16 years old on the day of the alleged crime, and was not competent to waive his constitutional rights, even though his legal custodian and mother were present. From the evidence, it appears that the defendant had been placed in the custody of some woman rather than his natural mother. However, on the night of the alleged crime, defendant was brought to the jail by Officer Acox, and was followed in a separate vehicle by defendant's mother, and legal guardian, also a negro woman, and who was present during the custodial interrogation of defendant, who purportedly confessed. It is defendant's contention that a 16 year old boy, who testerday was a child of 15 years, was denied his constitutional right to have counsel present, and that he was incapable because of his...