Goodwin v. State, F-81-780
| Decision Date | 16 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. F-81-780,F-81-780 |
| Parties | Michael Don GOODWIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Michael Don Goodwin, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of Second Degree Murder, in the District Court for Stephens County, Case No. CRF-80-204, was sentenced to twenty (20) years' imprisonment and appeals.
On the night of August 29, 1980, sometime between the hours of 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. a shooting occurred in the parking lot of a private club in Duncan, Oklahoma. An eyewitness to the shooting testified that the defendant had fired the gunshots which resulted in the victim's death. A friend of the defendant who had been in the bar that night, when asked at trial, "When the shot went off, do you recall--remember looking back and seeing Mike Goodwin in the bar?" replied "Yes, Sir." Other witnesses testified that the defendant was in the bar both prior and subsequent to the shooting.
The defendant as his first assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred when it refused to give an instruction on the defense of alibi. Defendant's requested instruction was in essence identical with the instruction recommended for use by this Court in Stuart v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 103, 249 P. 159 (1926). See also, Cortez v. State, 415 P.2d 196 (Okl.Cr.1966).
An issue of great concern at the trial was whether the defendant was inside the bar or whether he had stepped outside the bar unnoticed for the few brief minutes required to kill the victim. There is no question that at the relevant time, the defendant was in close proximity to where the crime was committed. See, Story v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 273, 120 P.2d 387 (1941). In Gregg v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 103, 101 P.2d 289 (1940) this Court when confronted with "a so called 'fifteen minute alibi' where all of defendant's testimony [showed] that he was in the immediate vicinity where the alleged offense occurred" held as follows:
Alibi is a physical circumstance and derives its entire potency as a defense from the fact that it involves the physical impossibility of the guilt of the accused. Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 167, 47 S.E. 520.
In the case of Barbe v. Territory, 16 Okl. 562, 86 P. 61, our court laid down the following rule: 'To entitle the defense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duckett v. State
...v. Bridgeman, 51 Ohio App.2d 105, 366 N.E.2d 1378, 1389 (1977), modified 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978); Goodwin v. State, 654 P.2d 643, 644 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); State v. Yielding, 238 Or. 419, 395 P.2d 172, 173 (1964); Commonwealth v. Brunner, 341 Pa.Super. 64, 491 A.2d 150, 152......
-
Locke v. State
...fills this requirement of the law, no instruction on the subject of alibi is necessary to be given by the trial court. Goodwin v. State, 654 P.2d 643, 644 (Okl.Cr.1982); Henderson v. State, 716 P.2d 691, 693 Henry Love testified that he was playing basketball at the Kerr Village Apartments ......
-
Trissell v. State
...accused's proof must show that he could not have been at the place of the offense at the time shown by the prosecution. Goodwin v. State, 654 P.2d 643, 655 (Okl.Cr.1982). In the present case, both appellant and his mother testified that he was in his room watching television when the burgla......
-
Henderson v. State, F-84-157
...fills this requirement of the law, no instruction on the subject of alibi is necessary to be given by the trial court. Goodwin v. State, 654 P.2d 643, 644 (Okl.Cr.1982). The appellant admitted during cross-examination that he was on foot within one block of the victim's house about the time......