Hampton v. State

Decision Date06 October 1965
Docket NumberNo. A-13638,A-13638
Citation407 P.2d 210
PartiesJames Dwain HAMPTION, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is the duty of counsel to raise, at proper time and in proper manner, all objections to the proceedings and save proper exceptions. When this is not done, they are treated as waived, and there are few exceptions to this rule.

2. When evidence is admitted without objection, it is too late to complain about the introduction upon appeal.

3. 'Dying declarations' are statements of material facts concerning the cause and circumstance of the homicide, made by the victim under the solemn conviction of impending death.

4. Preliminary proof for laying grounds for the admission of the dying declaration examined, and found sufficient.

5. Homicide committed in the perpetration of robbery is 'murder', and in such a case, deliberation and premeditated design to effect death are presumed.

6. All persons concerned in the commission of crime, whether it be felony or mis-demeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, are principals. Title 21, O.S.A., § 172.

7. Where two or more persons combine together for the purpose of accomplishing some unlawful act, and in the commission of such act murder is perpetrated, each of the parties to such conspiracy is guilty, regardless of whether he participated in the actual killing or not.

Appeal from District Court of Kiowa County; Weldon Ferris, Judge.

James Dwain Hampton was convicted of the crime of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

Pat Sullivan and Lewis F. Oerke, Lawton, for plaintiff in error.

Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

Plaintiff in Error, James Dwain Hampton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was found guilty of the charge of Murder in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma, and sentenced to Life Imprisonment. From that judgment and sentence he has perfected his appeal to this Court alleging two contentions of error.

This charge of murder arose from the shooting of a tavern owner during an armed robbery. The evidence presented by the State establishes that the defendant and another man, Clarence Taylor, entered Kay's Tavern at Snyder, Oklahoma, on the night of February 25, 1964. They were described by all the occupants as one being tall and dark-headed; and the other, shorter and sandy-haired. The defendant was positively identified by two boys who were in the tavern but left shortly before the trouble occurred. The one eye-witness to the robbery, J. E. Riley, was unable to positively identify the defendant, but stated he looked like the man he saw. He explained his attention was centered on the tall, darkheaded man, as he was holding the gun. Mr. Riley said Taylor ordered everyone to get down on the floor, which he did. He heard Taylor order Kay Swyden (the deceased) to lock the door. There was a scuffle of feet, apparently a struggle, and then the gun went off three or four times. Mr. Riley testified that when he heard the shots, he jumped up and tried to get out the door, but something hit him over the head and knocked him out. (Later discovered to be a coke bottle) When he opened his eyes a few minutes later; he saw the shorter man run toward Taylor and Swyden, and he was able to get up and get out the door. He ran all the way to the City Marshal's Office for help, but before they could return, Mr. Swyden came up in his car, honking the horn; told the Marshall that 'they' had robbed him and shot him; that he thought he was dying. They took him to the Dr.'s office and later to the hospital, where he died about 2:30 A.M. He stated several times, 'They have killed me'. He gave the Deputy Sheriff a description of the men and the car they were driving, which was also described by another witness at the tavern.

The defendant and Taylor were arrested about 12:45 A.M. between Ft. Cobb and Anadarko, driving the described Oldsmobile. Forrest Hall, City Marshall at Ft. Cobb, testified that Taylor was wearing a plaid sports coat with leather patches on the sleeve, and Hampton was wearing a red knit shirt and blue suit coat. When Mr. Riley was brought in to identify them, Hall noticed Hampton had removed his red shirt, buttoned up his suit coat and tucked it in his trousers. When asked what he had done with his shirt, he told Hall he had torn it up and flushed it down the stool.

A gas loaded pellet gun was found concealed in the wall of defendant's car, but was not identified as the murder gun.

Defendant testified in his own behalf, and attempted to establish an alibi. He stated that on February 25 he was at the Hillcrest Steak House in Oklahoma City where he saw Taylor (who he had met several times) and a girl called 'Blackie'. He agreed to drive them to Altus; they arrived there at approximately 9:00 P.M., drove thru town, then went to a Drive-In Restaurant. Taylor asked to borrow the car, left, and Hampton and the girl remained at the restaurant for awhile. She later checked into a motel down the street, where she was to meet some man. Defendant walked back to the restaurant where he allegedly stayed for 2 hours waiting for Taylor to come back. When he returned, they started back to Oklahoma City, and were arrested between Ft. Cobb and Anadarko. He stated he was not in Kay's Tavern, or in Snyder. Stated he had never been convicted of a felony, but has paid fines for drunk, fighting, and traffic in Oklahoma City and Lawton. On cross-examination, he could not identify the Drive-In Restaurant, had made no effort to find the girl, nor did the defense call Taylor to substantiate any part of his story.

Defendant's first contention of error is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Hampton v. State of Oklahoma, Civ. No. 66-510.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • May 2, 1967
    ...when the jury trial started that the petitioner had not been afforded a speedy trial. Nor was it mentioned on appeal. See Hampton v. State, Okl.Cr., 407 P.2d 210. Moreover, it does not appear reasonable or logical to the Court that the petitioner herein would be demanding a speedy trial whe......
  • Fitchew v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 14, 1970
    ...so modified, the judgment and sentence is affirmed. Modified and affirmed. 1 See Bearshield v. State, Okl.Cr., 318 P.2d 462; Hampton v. State, Okl.Cr., 407 P.2d 210; Cody v. State, Okl.Cr., 361 P.2d 307, 84 A.L.R.2d 997; Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 410 P.2d 559, and Henderson v. State, Okl.Cr.......
  • Carson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 3, 1974
    ...irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. In Lung v. State, Okl.Cr., 420 P.2d 158 (1966), this Court cited with approval Hampton v. State, Okl.Cr., 407 P.2d 210 (1965), " 'It is the duty of counsel to raise, at proper time and in proper manner, all objections to the proceedings and save prope......
  • Roberts v. State, F-77-30
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 23, 1977
    ...that where evidence is admitted, without objection, defendant may not complain upon appeal about its introduction. See Hampton v. State, Okl.Cr., 407 P.2d 210 (1965) and Young v. State, Okl.Cr., 531 P.2d 1403 (1975). Defendant complains, in the second assignment of error, that the prosecuti......
  • 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