Glass v. State
Decision Date | 06 June 1985 |
Docket Number | No. F-83-562,F-83-562 |
Citation | 1985 OK CR 65,701 P.2d 765 |
Parties | Tommy Dale GLASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Tommy Dale Glass, was convicted in the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CRF-82-318, of two counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of violating the Crime Against Nature, two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, and one count of Assault With Intent to Rape. The jury returned verdicts on punishment totaling one-hundred-nine (109) years imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellant alleges in his first assignment of error that in one charging instrument the Information herein fatally misjoined seven separately punishable offenses involving three distinct incidents of criminal activity. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for a severance. We do not agree.
The Information reflects appellant was charged in counts one and two with Rape in the First Degree and Crime Against Nature directed against M.S. on May 11, 1982; that counts three and four involve the crimes of Rape in the First Degree and Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon perpetrated on May 14, 1982 against C.J.; and counts five, six and seven encompass charges of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, Assault with Intent to Rape, and Crime Against Nature in a May 14, 1982 incident against C.M.
Prior to 1968, joinder of offenses was governed by 22 O.S.1961, § 404, which made it impossible to join in one information two or more separately punishable offenses, such as filed here. Joinder of offenses was permitted only if "proof [was] uncertain as to which of two or more offenses the accused [might] be guilty of," but in no event was a defendant to be convicted of more than one offense. Two or more informations or indictments could be consolidated for trial only if the consolidation was consented to, and would not prejudice the defendant. See Kramer v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 36, 257 P.2d 521 (1953).
In 1968, the Legislature passed 22 O.S.1981, §§ 436 et seq, which, according to the title of the act, was intended to allow joinder for trial of two or more separate offenses. However, the statute itself did not deal explicitly with joinder of offenses, and it was assumed section 404 still governed this issue. See Note, Criminal Procedure: Joinder of Offenses in Oklahoma--A Catch in Title 22, 27 Okla.L.Rev. 499 (1974).
This ambiguity was resolved in 1977 with Judge Brett's landmark special concurrance in Dodson v. State, 562 P.2d 916, 923 (Okl.Cr.1977) (Brett, J.: Specially Concurring). 1 In a scholarly analysis of section 436 et seq, Judge Brett determined that joinder of offenses is permissible under this act, and that section 404 had therefore been repealed. See also Hill v. State, 589 P.2d 1073 (Okl.Cr.1979) (Bussey, J., Specially Concurring).
Appellant, while conceding joinder of offenses is now permissible under Oklahoma law, argues the joinder herein was unlawful because the alleged offenses occurred during three separate criminal transactions. He argues that joinder of separate offenses is allowed only for those crimes arising out of the same criminal transaction.
Under section 436, joinder of defendants in one information is permitted only "if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses." It therefore follows, under the analysis employed by Judge Brett in Dodson, that this same standard applies to joinder of offenses as well. Thus, joinder of separately punishable offenses is permitted if the separate offenses arise out of one criminal act or transaction, or are part of a series of criminal acts or transactions. Accord Johnson v. State, 650 P.2d 875, 876 (Okl.Cr.1982) (dicta).
Turning to the facts of this case, it is clear that all of the charged offenses did not arise out of a single transaction; however, they did occur in a series of transactions. We have never had occasion to interpret the phrase "series of criminal acts or transactions" in this context. In so construing the statute, we are obligated to employ the common and ordinary meaning of the statutory term. See State ex. rel. Cartwright v. Georgia-Pacific, 663 P.2d 718, 722 (Okl.Cr.1983). The American College Dictionary defines "series" as "a number of things, events, etc., ranged or occurring in spatial, temporal, or other succession; a sequence." Id. at 1106 [Emphasis added]. Accordingly, joinder of offenses is proper where the counts so joined refer to the same type of offenses occurring over a relatively short period of time, in approximately the same location, and proof as to each transaction overlaps so as to evidence a common scheme or plan. Accord United States v. Shearer, 606 F.2d 819, 820 (8th Cir.1979) (Rule 8(a), Fed. Rules of Crim. Proc.) . Mere similarity of offenses does not provide an adequate basis for joinder under our statute. Accord Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C.Cir.1964).
We agree with the State that the Information was proper, and the trial court was within its lawful authority in denying appellant's motion to sever. Each criminal transaction commenced just blocks from the others on Cashe Street in Lawton, Oklahoma. The offenses occurred over a relatively short period of time--less than three days between the first and second transaction, and only two hours between the second and third incidents. In each case, appellant demanded oral and vaginal sex from his victim, and either forced or attempted to force the victim to give up jewelry and valuable personal possessions. All of the victims were accosted by the appellant late at night, and, in the second and third incidents, the appellant used the same weapon in accomplishing his crimes. We hold that the separately punishable offenses alleged in the Information were properly joined.
Appellant's second and third assignments of error raise allegations relating to the instructions issued by the trial court. In each case, however, the appellant offered no objection to the instructions. This assignment of error is waived. Smith v. State, 568 P.2d 639 (Okl.Cr.1977).
In his third assignment of error, appellant alleges the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during his examination of a rebuttal witness. Appellant had attempted to show that he was at a friend's house watching "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" on cable television at the time one or more of the offenses occurred. Comanche County District Attorney Dick Tannery called as a rebuttal witness Cablevision manager William Drewery. The following exchange took place:
Q Have you checked to see whether or not "Legend of the Lone Ranger" was on HBO between the dates of May 11th and May 14th, 1982?
We have recently stated that prosecution attempts to elicit improper hearsay testimony constitute prosecutorial misconduct even when the defense fails to object. Collis v. State, 685 P.2d 975, 978 (Okl.Cr.1984). However, unlike Collis, the witness did not respond with hearsay testimony prejudicing the appellant. While the prosecutor's conduct was inappropriate, we cannot say error occurred.
Appellant also argues that insufficient evidence was presented in the preliminary hearing, and that the bind-over order on counts three and four were unjustified. Appellant claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilson v. State
...offenses "arise out of one criminal act or transaction, or are part of a series of criminal acts or transactions." Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765, 768 (Okl.Cr.1985). "Further, with respect to a series of criminal acts or transactions, `joinder of offenses is proper where the counts so joined ......
-
Smith v. Trammell
...presented his argument in accordance with the factors considered under Oklahoma law and as set forth by the OCCA in Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). However, the Court is not considering Petitioner's state law claim because "it is not the province of a federal habeas co......
-
Millsap v. Allbaugh
...when the crimes arise out of the same criminal act or transaction or are part of a series of criminal acts or transactions. Glass v. State, 1985 OK CR 65, ¶ 8, 701 P.2d 765, 768. "Criminal acts are properly called a 'series' where the joined counts: (1) refer to the same type of offenses, (......
-
Cummings v. Sirmons
...offenses arise out of one criminal act or transaction, or are part of a series of criminal acts or transactions." Glass v. State, 1985 OK CR 65, 701 P.2d 765, 768. Further, with respect to a series of criminal acts or transactions, "joinder of offenses is proper where the counts so joined r......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...year old daughter). Davis v. State, 367 So. 2d 445 (Miss. 1979) (unnatural sexual intercourse with 11 year old female.) Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (adult male convicted of rape, sodomy, robbery against two Golden v. State, 695 P.2d 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (adult ......
-
MISSING THE MISJOINDER MARK: IMPROVING CRIMINAL JOINDER OF OFFENSES IN CAPITAL-SENTENCING JURISDICTIONS.
...also infra Appendix A. (79) OKLA. STAT. tit. 22, [section] 404 (2019). (80) See OKLA. STAT. tit. 22, [section] 436 (2019); Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765, 768 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985); Dodson v. State, 562 P.2d 916, 923 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977) (Brett, J., specially concurring). Judge Brett's c......