Glasgow v. State, F-77-411
| Decision Date | 28 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-411,F-77-411 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 290 |
| Parties | Donny Wayne GLASGOW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Donny Wayne Glasgow, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried by a jury and convicted in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No CRF-76-1606, for the offense of Armed Robbery, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 801. Punishment was fixed at eight (8) years' imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Since the defendant's only assignment of error concerns the testimony of Toni Carrie and the record sent to this Court only reflects such testimony, we will restrict ourselves to that portion of the case.
The State's only witness was Mrs. Toni Carrie, the former Ms. Toni Leese, who on May 26, 1976, was employed by U-Tote-M Stores and worked at Store Number 930, located at 9506 East Pine, in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Carrie testified that at about 10:00 a. m. on May 26, 1976, the store where she was working was robbed by an individual wearing a cowboy hat, cowboy boots and sunglasses. At the time of the robbery, Carrie was working alone and there were no customers in the store. Carrie stated that the individual had come up from behind her, grabbed her and threw her to the ground. It was at this time she noticed he had a gun, which she identified as a blue steel automatic. During the whole incident Carrie was told by the intruder not to look at him but she did manage to catch glimpses of him at various times. Carrie was then told to proceed to the front of the store where the cash register was located. When she gave him $70.00 from the cash register, Carrie caught her first quick glimpse of the robber. He then told her to go to the back room. Carrie was reluctant to go back there and while trying to talk him out of it, she gazed at him for about a minute. When he shut the door to the back room, she caught another look at him but for only a second. After Carrie heard him leave she then called the police.
The pertinent testimony upon which the defendant bases his assignment of error, concerns Ms. Carrie's educational experience. (Tr. 13-14). The State questioned Carrie as to the educational courses she had taken and if any of them had to do with awareness training. Carrie testified that during her Junior Year in High School she had taken a three week Psychology course which taught her how to develop awareness. She then described the test used in the course. Defendant objected to this line of questioning as being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The objection was overruled. Carrie further testified that she received an average grade of 99.4% for the course. This testimony preceded the in court identification of the defendant by Carrie.
As his only assignment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. State
...an appellant must go to show this injury is uncertain. Two cases, Seth v. State, 647 P.2d 452, 455 (Okl.Cr.1982) and Glasgow v. State, 572 P.2d 290, 292 (Okl.Cr.1977), state the appellant bears a "heavy" burden of proving prejudice. Glasgow cites as authority 20 O.S.1971, § 3001, a statute ......
-
Cooper v. State, F-81-404
...ruling is not reversible where there is no showing of prejudice to the defendant or breach of his fundamental rights. Glasgow v. State, 572 P.2d 290 (Okl.Cr.1977). We find no abuse of discretion in this Appellant further contends that a prosecution witness was permitted to relate hearsay st......
-
Teafatiller v. State, F-84-438
...there is no showing of prejudice to the appellant or a breach of his fundamental rights, this Court will not reverse. Glasgow v. State, 572 P.2d 290 (Okl.Cr.1977). Further, this Court has held that the implication of another crime which is obvious only to defense counsel is not inadmissible......
-
Byrne v. State
...541 P.2d 1343 (1975), but the testimony, which preceded its exclusion from evidence, did not constitute reversible error. Glasgow v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 290 (1977). According to the appellant, the court is required to admonish the jury even in the absence of a timely request to do so. ......