Greathouse v. State, A--17048
| Decision Date | 08 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. A--17048,A--17048 |
| Citation | 503 P.2d 239 |
| Parties | James Euril GREATHOUSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, James Euril Greathouse, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CFR 70--112, of failure to return rented property, after former conviction of a felony, and sentenced to a term of three to ten years imprisonment. Judgment and sentence was imposed on April 26, 1971, and this appeal perfected therefrom.
It was charged by information that the defendant, on June 1, 1970, did execute a rental agreement for an automobile, a 1970 American Motors Hornet, which was to be returned before June 8, 1970; and that defendant, after gaining possession of said automobile, failed to return the same. The evidence established that on June 1, 1970, the defendant rented a 1970 American Motors Hornet from the New Rambler Ranch in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Howard Clifton Bridges testified that he was the service manager of the New Rambler Ranch and had personally rented the automobile to the defendant, pursuant to a rental agreement. Two other employees of the New Rambler Ranch testified that the defendant had rented the automobile, that the automobile had a value of approximately $2,100, and that the automobile had never been returned. Upon this evidence the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of failing to return rented property.
In the second stage of the trial the State introduced, over objection, a judgment and sentence indicating that the defendant had been convicted of grand larceny in the State of Arkansas on September 6, 1966. The defendant's motion to suppress the Arkansas judgment and sentence, and request for a non-jury hearing on the alleged invalidity of the conviction, was overruled. The defendant then took the stand and testified concerning his Arkansas conviction. Defendant testified that he had remained in jail for five months on the charge, that he had been denied a preliminary hearing, that he was indigent, that he could not afford counsel, and that counsel was not appointed or offered to represent him. On cross-examination the defendant admitted another conviction for auto theft in Wagoner County, Oklahoma, in 1962, and a federal conviction for possession of a stolen car in 1964. Defendant further denied being represented by counsel on these two convictions as well.
After hearing this evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of failur to return rented property after former conviction of a felony, and assessed punishment at a term of three to ten years imprisonment.
It is defendant's first contention that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after one juror acknowledged tht he personally knew one of the State's witnesses. After the voir dire of the jury, and the jury had been sworn, and after three witnesses were sworn, one of the jurors stated: 'I don't know whether it would make any difference or have any effect on my qualification, but I recognize one of the witness. . . .' Thereupon, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The court then addressed the juror as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romano v. State
...of the trial court, and absent an abuse thereof, the finding of the trial court will not be upset on review. Greathouse v. State, 503 P.2d 239, 240 (Okl.Cr.1972). During voir dire, Mr. McDonald clearly indicated that he understood that the defendants were presumed to be innocent of the char......
-
Woodruff v. State
...of the trial court, and absent an abuse thereof, the finding of the trial court will not be upset on review. Greathouse v. State, 503 P.2d 239, 240 (Okl.Cr.1972). During voir dire, Mr. McDonald clearly indicated that he understood that the defendants were presumed to be innocent of the char......
-
Engram v. State, F--75--410
...the jury in the second stage of the proceedings. The State urges, and we agree, that this Court has previously held, in Greathouse v. State, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 239 (1972), that whether or not defendant's former convictions are constitutionally valid, as contemplated by Gideon v. Wainwright, ......
-
Grizzle v. State, F--76--1
...1, 112 P.2d 438 (1941). Only where an abuse of this discretion is evident will the trial court's rulings be disturbed. Greathouse v. State, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 239 (1972). There was no such abuse here. Although the juror was clearly attuned to the pretrial publicity in proceedings, she repeat......