Grimmett v. State, No. F-77-305

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtBUSSEY
Citation572 P.2d 272,1977 OK CR 320
Decision Date17 November 1977
Docket NumberNo. F-77-305
PartiesLeonard GRIMMETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

Page 272

572 P.2d 272
Leonard GRIMMETT, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-77-305.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Nov. 17, 1977.

Page 273

An appeal from the District Court, Oklahoma County; Homer Smith, judge.

Leonard Grimmett, appellant, was convicted of the offense of Larceny of Merchandise From a Retailer, After Former Conviction of a Felony; punishment was fixed at a term of four (4) years imprisonment and appeals. Judgment and sentence AFFIRMED.

John T. Elliott, Public Defender, John M. Stuart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jerry Earl Benson, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

At 8:15 p. m. on April 9, 1976, Leonard Grimmett and his brother Larnell Richard Grimmett, entered the T. G. & Y. store located at 1024 S.E. 44th, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, passed the check-out stand operated by Ralph Gibson, Assistant Manager, proceeded to the men's department where Security Officer James Hall observed them remove shirts from the rack and alternately walk 15 feet to the corner of the building, and squat down and wrap the shirts around their legs. Officer Hall notified Ralph Gibson and as Leonard Grimmett passed through the check stand without paying, Hall followed him out of the store. Larnell Richard Grimmett left the store some 20 feet behind his brother and Officer Hall, without paying for the merchandise, and he was followed out of the store by Assistant Manager Gibson.

The two brothers were arrested by Officer Hall, and searched, and one shirt valued at $11.88 was removed from the leg of Leonard Grimmett and two shirts valued at $9.97 each were removed from the legs of Larnell Richard Grimmett. The two brothers were charged conjointly and together with the offense of Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1731. Both waived preliminary examination and when Larnell Richard Grimmett failed to appear for trial, Leonard Grimmett was tried separately and found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment and appeals.

On appeal he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, in that the proof was insufficient to establish that he and his brother acted conjointly and together, and therefore the shirt which he stole did not exceed the value of $20.00. This assignment of error is patently...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • In re Adoption of 2012 Revisions to Okla. Uniform Jury Instructions–Criminal (Second Edition), No. CCAD–2012–1.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 7, 2012
    ...not reversible error unless the evidence against the defendant is inherently weak or improbable. Grimmett v. State, 1977 OK CR 320, ¶ 5, 572 P.2d 272, 274. In Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7, 179 P.3d 615, the trial court modified this instruction by eliminating the reasonable hypothesis test in......
  • Parks v. State, No. F-79-3
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 26, 1982
    ...and circumstantial, it is not error to fail to give a circumstantial evidence instruction when none is requested. Grimmett v. State, 572 P.2d 272 Page 691 (Okl.Cr.App.1977). Therefore, the trial court did not commit error by failing to provide a general circumstantial evidence instruction. ......
  • Dyke v. State, No. F-83-659
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 1, 1986
    ...no request is made, is not reversible error unless the evidence against the defendant is inherently weak or improbable. Grimmett v. State, 572 P.2d 272, 274 (Okl.Cr. 1977). In this case, the evidence regarding the Humphrey robbery was, as the State asserts, both circumstantial and direct. H......
  • Yarn v. State, No. S95G0636
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • September 11, 1995
    ...The courts of other states have held that this rule is not inconsistent with the rule articulated in Robinson and Mims. Grimmett v. State, 572 P.2d 272, 274 (Okl.Cr.1977); State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tenn.1975). We note that essentially the same analysis of this issue is set for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • In re Adoption of 2012 Revisions to Okla. Uniform Jury Instructions–Criminal (Second Edition), No. CCAD–2012–1.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 7, 2012
    ...not reversible error unless the evidence against the defendant is inherently weak or improbable. Grimmett v. State, 1977 OK CR 320, ¶ 5, 572 P.2d 272, 274. In Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7, 179 P.3d 615, the trial court modified this instruction by eliminating the reasonable hypothesis test in......
  • Parks v. State, No. F-79-3
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 26, 1982
    ...and circumstantial, it is not error to fail to give a circumstantial evidence instruction when none is requested. Grimmett v. State, 572 P.2d 272 Page 691 (Okl.Cr.App.1977). Therefore, the trial court did not commit error by failing to provide a general circumstantial evidence instruction. ......
  • Dyke v. State, No. F-83-659
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 1, 1986
    ...no request is made, is not reversible error unless the evidence against the defendant is inherently weak or improbable. Grimmett v. State, 572 P.2d 272, 274 (Okl.Cr. 1977). In this case, the evidence regarding the Humphrey robbery was, as the State asserts, both circumstantial and direct. H......
  • Yarn v. State, No. S95G0636
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • September 11, 1995
    ...The courts of other states have held that this rule is not inconsistent with the rule articulated in Robinson and Mims. Grimmett v. State, 572 P.2d 272, 274 (Okl.Cr.1977); State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tenn.1975). We note that essentially the same analysis of this issue is set for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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