Gautt v. State, F--75--679

Decision Date21 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. F--75--679,F--75--679
Citation551 P.2d 1150
PartiesRandy Lee GAUTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
OPINION

BLISS, Judge:

The Appellant, Randy Lee Gautt, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried before a jury and convicted of the offense of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF--75--135. Punishment was assessed at a term of five (5) years under the direction and control of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma. From a judgment and sentence in conformance with the verdict the defendant has perfected his timely appeal.

Briefly stated, the evidence adduced at trial is as follows, to-wit: Kenneth Peterson testified that on the 5th day of January, 1975, at approximately 8:45 A.M., he, the defendant and two other individuals stopped at Little Jim's Grocery in Oklahoma City so that the witness could purchase a package of cigarettes. Shortly after the witness entered the store the defendant came in, brandished a firearm and demanded money from the clerk. He then left the store with the money while Peterson remained inside the store waiting on his change. The clerk asked him if he saw the robbery and Peterson stated that he had. In response to the clerk's request for his name as a witness, Peterson gave the clerk an alias 'Jim Taylor' because he didn't want to get involved. Subsequently, the defendant came back in the store and stated 'Let's go' and the witness left with the defendant. Thereafter they drove to the home of a former employer where the witness got out. Peterson stated that he did not know the defendant was going to rob the store. On cross-examination, Peterson stated that he, the defendant and two others had been riding around Oklahoma City for approximately two (2) hours before they stopped for him to get cigarettes. He further stated that he was in the store five (5) to six (6) minutes, that he had never seen the gun prior to the time the defendant came in the store, that he never saw the gun again, that he never shared in the proceeds of the robbery, that he was never charged with the crime and that he didn't report it to the police since his mother advised him not to get involved.

Wayne N. Smith then testified that on the day in question he was employed as the cashier at Little Jim's and was the only employee in the store during the robbery. He further stated that at approximately 8:45 A.M. Peterson came in to purchase a package of cigarettes and was waiting for his change when another man with a small revolver entered and demanded money. Smith gave him the cash on hand and the robber left while Peterson remained in the store waiting on his change. Smith asked Peterson for his name and then gave him his change. The robber then came back in and told Peterson to come outside. Smith then stated he believed he could identify the defendant as the man who robbed the store. After an evidentiary hearing concerning a lineup procedure, Smith then testified that approximately a week after the robbery he attended a lineup at the police department and identified one of the lineup participants as the man who robbed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Foster v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • February 4, 1986
    ...in it or the other crimes. Furthermore, there was presented evidence which was corroborative of the State's theory. Gautt v. State, 551 P.2d 1150 (Okl.Cr.1976). When the couple reached a motel in Dennison, Texas, on the evening of the offenses, appellant registered under an assumed name. On......
  • Simpson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 8, 1994
    ...provision of § 2803.1.3 This Court has applied the harmless error analysis in evaluating statutory violations. See e.g. Gautt v. State, 551 P.2d 1150 (Okl.Cr.1976) (failure to follow statutory rule on corroboration of accomplice testimony subject to harmless error analysis); Lime v. State, ......
  • Underwood v. State, F-80-695
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • February 24, 1983
    ...determined to be an accomplice, the failure to give the appellant's requested instruction would be harmless error. See, Gautt v. State, 551 P.2d 1150 (Okl.Cr.1976), and cases cited In another assignment of error, the appellant complains of alleged improper comments made by the prosecutor du......
  • Johnston v. State, F-83-152
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 22, 1983
    ...testified that her assailant "put his penis into my vagina." Penetration was proven by ample uncontradicted evidence. In Gautt v. State, 551 P.2d 1150 (Okl.Cr.1976), we held it was error, but only harmless error, that the trial court failed to instruct that an accomplice's testimony must be......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT