Hardin v. State
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Citation | 462 P.2d 357 |
| Docket Number | No. A--14588,A--14588 |
| Parties | Cecil Eugene HARDIN, William David Piatt, and John Wigley, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1969 |
Page 357
Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
Page 358
Syllabus by the Court
1. When a defendant is put upon trial for one offense, he is to be convicted, if at all, by evidence which shows that he is guilty of that offense alone and the admission of evidence of other crimes, either prior or subsequent to the offense for which he is on trial is inadmissible.
2. The Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that the exceptions to the general rule are to be used with the utmost caution and the Court must perceive a visual connection and in case any doubt is entertained, it is to be resolved in favor of defendant. The exception to the general rule is not secondary to the rule and before evidence of other crimes can be competent or admissible in a criminal trial to prove the specific crime charged on the grounds of common scheme or plan, the two or more crimes must be so clearly related that the proof of one tends to establish the other and should never be admitted when it tends to show that the accused has committed other crimes wholly independent of that for which he is on trial.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County; Ben La Fon, Judge.
Cecil Eugene Hardin, William David Piatt and John Wigley were convicted of the crime of Aggravated Assault, and appeal. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
George W. Gay, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., H. L. McConnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
NIX, Judge.
The Plaintiffs in Error were charged by information in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County with the crime of Aggravated Assault. They were tried before a jury, found guilty and assessed defendant's with a fine of $250.00.
The chief complaint of defendant's regard the admission of other offenses which defendant's claim constitute reversible error. The alleged error arose during cross-examination of defendant Piatt by the State's Attorney, and in the following manner:
'Q. Have you been in any fights?
MR. GAY: Object as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I have been in a fight.
Q. How many fights have you been in?
A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know.
Q. Is it a great number?
A. No.
Q. One or two?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you sure?
A. Yes.
Q. When were those fights?
MR. GAY: Object as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. When I was fourteen--going to grade school. I couldn't tell you when.
Page 359
Q. Sometime ago--that's the last time you have been in a fight?
A. Yes.
Q. How old are you?
A. Seventeen.
Q. You had a fight on August 27, 1966?
MR. GAY: Object as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and improper cross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GAY: Exception.
Q. (By Mr. Fleming) At 5 Northwest 27th?
(No response by the witness.)
THE COURT: What was your answer to that question?
A. What question?
Q. (By Mr. Fleming) Were you in a fight on August 27, 1966?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You think if you has been in a fight on that date, you would have remembered it?
A. No.
Q. You wouldn't remember it if you had been in a fight on that date?
A. No.
Q. Were you in a fight on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henderson, 1
...in favor of excluding evidence of extraneous criminal conduct. 108 Ariz. at 218, 495 P.2d at 448, quoting from Hardin v. State, 462 P.2d 357, 359-60 (Okla.Cr.1969). See also, State v. Tuell, With due regard to the policy expressed in Moore and Tuell, we are compelled to agree with appellant......
-
State v. Moore, 2258
...it tends to show that the accused has committed other crimes wholly independent of that for which he is on trial. " Hardin v. State, Okl.Cr., 462 P.2d 357, 359, 360 (1969). There is no doubt that the evidence of the Enco robbery was highly prejudicial, especially due to the fact that the pr......
-
State v. Roper, s. 1
...upon to show a common plan or scheme." 108 Ariz. at 217, 495 P.2d at 447. The court in Moore quoted with approval from Hardin v. State, 462 P.2d 357, 359-60 (Okl.Cr.1969), in part, as "The court has repeatedly held that this exception and other exceptions to the general rule are to be used ......
-
Ruhm v. State, A--16390
...as it affects a criminal case and the credibility of the defendant. The authority urged by the defendant in both briefs, Hardin v. State, Okl.Cr., 462 P.2d 357 (1969) is distinguishable from the case at bar inasmuch as the matter complained of there concerned evidence of other Crimes, rathe......