Godbey v. State, F-84-831
| Decision Date | 13 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. F-84-831,F-84-831 |
| Citation | 731 P.2d 986 |
| Parties | Jerry GODBEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Jerry Godbey, was convicted in the District Court of Bryan County, Case No. CRF-84-17, of Attempted Rape and Forcible Sodomy, for which he received sentences of fifty years' and twenty years' imprisonment, respectively. He raises five assignments of error.
Briefly stated, at some time during December, 1983, while babysitting with his seven-year-old stepdaughter, the appellant attempted to have intercourse with her, and at another time he forced her to commit oral sodomy upon him. On January 16, 1984, a social worker, upon a report to her from one of the victim's older sisters, conducted an interview with her using anatomical dolls to help her explain what had happened. After having her examined by a physician, the social worker referred the case to the district attorney. In her testimony at trial, the victim used the anatomical dolls to help her describe the incidents to the jury. The appellant denied the acts.
In his first assignment of error, the appellant alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a change of venue. He claims that two articles in a Durant newspaper, one involving the disposition of a case of child molesting, and the other a report of President Reagan's signing of legislation concerning child pornography, denied the appellant his constitutional right to a fair trial. Granting a change of venue is discretionary with the trial court, and this Court will not reverse a ruling of the trial court denying a change of venue unless there had clearly been an abuse of this discretion. Garcia v. State, 501 P.2d 1128 (Okl.Cr.1972). Upon an examination of the record, we are unable to find any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. We note that the trial court gave defense counsel wide latitude in examining the prospective jurors, and yet there was no showing that the newspaper articles, which made no mention of the appellant or the upcoming trial, had any adverse effect upon his trial. This assignment of error has no merit.
For his second assignment of error the appellant contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the introduction of evidence of other crimes. We need only note that the record does not show any objection to the alleged other crimes evidence. The majority opinion in Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okl.Cr.1979), which the appellant cites, pointed out that the procedures established in that case to notify defendants of the intention of the prosecution to use other crimes evidence, did not relieve defense attorneys of the need to object to inadmissible evidence. Therefore these alleged errors are not preserved for review. The appellant further complains that the trial court failed to give a cautionary instruction as required in Burks when evidence is introduced of other crimes. The record reveals that the second paragraph of instruction number ten contains a cautionary instruction concerning other crimes and so this assignment of error is also without merit.
The appellant next alleges improper prosecutorial comments deprived him of a fair trial. We will address only those alleged errors which were properly preserved by the imposition of timely objections. See Tucker v. State, 620 P.2d 1314 (Okl.Cr.1980). Six of these comments were made during voir dire of the prospective jurors. The first remark included a possibly misleading statement concerning the burden of proof which the court clarified by giving an instruction to the jury. The second involved the statement that the State was alleging child molestation. Defense counsel objected that the charge was attempted rape and forcible sodomy, which the court sustained. The third remark was in the form of a question in which the prosecutor asked the prospective jurors if they believed that grown men sometimes seek sexual gratification from little children. The defense counsel argued that the question was too general,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. State
...to grant or deny a change of venue and we will not reverse the trial court's decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Godbey v. State, 731 P.2d 986 (Okl.Cr.1987). An abuse of discretion in the refusal to grant a change of venue because of pretrial publicity is shown only where the defen......
-
Price v. State, F-86-319
...of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed absent abuse. Godbey v. State, 731 P.2d 986, 987 (Okl.Cr.1987); Frye v. State, 606 P.2d 599, 602 (Okl.Cr.1980). When considering such a motion, the presumption of law is that a defendant......
-
McBrain v. State, F-87-576
...within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will be reversed only if that discretion is abused. Godbey v. State, 731 P.2d 986, 987 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). Upon examination of the record, we are unable to find any abuse of discretion. Fifty-six potential jurors were called......
-
Lenard v. State, F-86-259
...in fact, cross-examined the witnesses extensively concerning the abuse. Accordingly, all but fundamental error is waived. Godbey v. State, 731 P.2d 986 (Okl.Cr.1987); Hamby v. State, 720 P.2d 345 We have reviewed the record before us and do not find that fundamental error occurred. Appellan......