Goodson v. State, F--76--787

Decision Date01 April 1977
Docket NumberNo. F--76--787,F--76--787
Citation562 P.2d 897
PartiesDonald R. GOODSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Appellant, Donald R. Goodson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF--74--2760, with the offense of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Goods, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1713. The case was tried to a jury and a guilty verdict was returned. Punishment was assessed at two (2) years' imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant was tried conjointly with co-defendant Jerry Austin Estep, whose appeal we have considered separately (F--76--666).

Ferrell Kirtley, a salesman at Sears and Roebuck in Tulsa, testified that he was charged with embezzlement along with Wayne Padgett and Pete Nicklau. He further testified that in November, 1974, he had entered into a scheme with Padgett and Nicklau to steal merchandise, large appliances such as refrigerators, washers and dryers, televisions and dishwashers, from Sears. On certain Wednesdays he, along with Padgett and Nicklau, would remove merchandise from the Sears warehouse and load them onto Padgett's truck. He would then go to a restaurant in Tulsa and receive payment for the articles. On November 20, 1974, he loaded a washer and dryer onto a blue pickup truck owned by Padgett. He stated that the washer and dryer had not been lawfully sold. Later that afternoon, he said, Padgett returned to Sears to take a color television and a refrigerator. In court the witness identified a white washer and dryer as items he had given to Padgett on November 20.

Ronald Marsh, a Sears security guard, stated that on November 19, 1974, he made an inventory of the articles under Kirtley's control by recording the model and serial numbers of the major appliances in the store at that time. On November 20 he concealed himself in a comper pickup truck in the Sears parking lot. During the day he observed Kirtley transfer possession of several appliances to Padgett and Nicklau. Among these items were a white washer and dryer, a television and a refrigerator. On the evening on November 20, a second inventory was performed by the witness, and by this method Marsh verified that several items had been removed without sales tickets being written. Marsh identified State's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 as the washer and dryer which had been removed on November 20, and for which no sales ticket had been issued.

Caroll Gatlin, working at Sears as an off-duty police officer, stated that he assisted Marsh in making the inventory described above, and while Marsh was engaged in the surveillance mentioned above he went to the Sundowner Apartment complex in Tulsa with Officer Jim Aud, there arresting Padgett and Nicklau for the offense of possession of stolen property.

Officer David Harrison said that he and other officers were assigned to go to Padgett's residence in Tulsa during the evening of November 20, 1974. At the time of his arrival there was a red pickup parked in the driveway. A female emerged from the house, turned the truck around and backed it partway into the open garage. A few minutes later he observed two females in the garage attempting to load a large light colored metallic sounding object onto the pickup. A few moments later he saw a car pull up to the residence, two males emerged, went to the garage, and loaded another large light colored metallic sounding object onto the pickup. The two males then started to drive away but the officers blocked the driveway and arrested the occupants in the pickup. Harrison then identified co-defendant Estep and the defendant as the two individuals arrested that night. He further identified State's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 as a washer and dryer which were in that pickup.

Jim Aud was the State's next witness and he stated that on November 20, 1974, he was a Tulsa Police Officer. He helped effectuate the arrests of Padgett and Nicklau earlier that day, and later that evening he observed co-defendant Estep at the police station. There, they had a conversation. At this point the jury was excused in order to have an appropriate in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of statements made by Estep. At this hearing co-defendant Estep testified, as did Assistant District Attorney Thompson. Following this hearing co-defendant Estep's motion to suppress his statements was overruled. Defendant renewed his motion for a severance as he was not present when co- defendant Estep made the statements. Said motion was also denied. The jury was then brought back in and admonished to not consider the statements made by co-defendant Estep against the defendant. Continuing with his testimony, Officer Aud related the substance of the conversation with co-defendant Estep. With the conclusion of this witness' testimony, the State rested.

The first witness called on behalf of the defense was Louise Padgett. She testified that she was the wife of Wayne Padgett and related that on November 20, 1974, she sewer from approximately 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., and that she was interrupted about midday when she observed Pete Nicklau unload a washing machine and dryer and television set in her garage. The witnesss stated that she had seen Mr. Nicklau on several previous occasions. She further stated that she had gone to the home of her sister at approximately 3:15 p.m. and returned home at approximately 8:30 that evening. Mrs. Padgett stated that upon returning home she received a telephone call from an attorney by the name of Dunn, and after she received this call she telephoned her sister and asked her to come over. The witness stated that when her sister arrived at her home she went outside and get into the pickup, turned it around, and backed it into the open garage. The witness stated that she had her sister then proceeded to load one of the appliances onto the bed of the pickup. At this time the defendant and co-defendant Estep rang the doorbell and the witness asked them both to come around to the garage. The witness stated the defendant and co-defendant loaded the washer onto the pickup. The witness stated she told them that her husband and Pete Nicklau had been arrested and that Nicklau had brought the appliances to her garage but she did not want them there; and, therefore, she was taking them back to Nicklau.

The witness also stated that she had also asked co-defendant Estep to move the pickup forward so that she could close the door, and further related that as they got to the pickup and pulled forward the police arrived. The witness then related the events she observed surrounding the arrest of the defendant and co-defendant Estep.

The next witness called on behalf of the defendant was Geneva Pearsoll. She related that she was the sister of Mrs. Padgett, ant her testimony to a substantial degree corroborated that of Mrs. Padgett.

Patricia Rothermel was called as the next defense witness and related that she managed the 5000 East Mobile Home Community where defendant resided. The witness related that she was familiar with Tulsa Police Officer Jim Aud, and stated that she had a conversation with Officer Aud in her office relating to the defendant. The witness stated that Officer Aud told her the defendant was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Defendant then took the stand in his own behalf and testified that on November 20, 1974, he had gone out to celebrate his birthday in a club, and had been approached by Estep. As a result of that conversation they went to the Padgett home. The defendant's testimony was practically...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Neill v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 28 Febrero 1992
    ...was directly implicated in the confession of the other co-defendant. Frye v. State, 606 P.2d 599, 605 (Okl.Cr.1980); Goodson v. State, 562 P.2d 897, 901 (Okl.Cr.1977); Edmondson v. State, 515 P.2d 1158, 1161 (Okl.Cr.1973); Clark v. State, 509 P.2d 1398, 1401-02 (Okl.Cr.1973); Fugett v. Stat......
  • Menefee v. State, s. F-80-748
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 19 Febrero 1982
    ...on facts in which the non-confessing co-defendant was directly implicated in the confession of the other co-defendant. Goodson v. State, 562 P.2d 897 (Okl.Cr.1977); Edmondson v. State, 515 P.2d 1158 (Okl.Cr.1973); Clark v. State, 509 P.2d 1398 (Okl.Cr.1973); Fugett v. State, 461 P.2d 1002 T......
  • Curry v. Streater
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 2009
    ...be established from objective facts unless the defendant admits the intent to harm. See id.; Goodson v. State, 1977 OK CR 135, ¶ 15, 562 P.2d 897, 900 (In criminal proceedings, intent is most often proved by circumstantial evidence, absent an admission.). The question then is whether the ac......
  • Frye v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 17 Enero 1980
    ...or confession, made after the commission of the crime, to a witness or a police officer, is accusatory of the defendant. Goodson v. State, Okl.Cr., 562 P.2d 897 (1977); Edmondson v. State, Okl.Cr., 515 P.2d 1158 (1973); Monroe v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 214 (1973); Bruton v. United States ......

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