Jones v. State, No. F--76--399
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | BRETT |
| Citation | 555 P.2d 63 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. F--76--399 |
| Parties | William Denton JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
Page 63
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Ronald H. Mook, Tulsa, for appellant.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Toby Mash, Legal Intern, for appellee.
BRETT, Presiding Judge.
Appellant, William Denton Jones, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF--75--2157, for the offense of Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony; to-wit, Kidnapping, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 681. He was tried by a jury and convicted of the aforementioned crime. His punishment was fixed at four (4) years' imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The State's first witness, Lillian McAnelly, testified to being at a car wash in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, on the evening of September 15, 1975. As she was preparing to leave, another car pulled up on the opposite side of the sweepers, and a man, later identified as the defendant, got out and asked the witness about the sweepers. As she turned to shut her car door, the man grabbed her from behind; they struggled for a brief period of time, during which the assailant said: 'I don't want to have to hurt you.' The witness broke free, ran to her auto, and looked back at the defendant, who was not pursuing her. She then drove to the police station, noting the tag number of the defendant's vehicle, and reported the incident to Sergeant Duke. On cross-examination it was noted that the assailant made no attempt to drag the victim, nor pick her up, neither was there further conversation between them. Re-direct examination presented the fact that the witness had relayed a description of the assailant to Sergeant Duke at the Police Station. Sergeant Duke was radio dispatcher at the Broken Arrow Police Department.
The State's second witness, Broken Arrow Police Officer, Terry Payne, testified to being the arresting officer. He received the description of the suspect over his vehicle radio, and assisted in stopping the described vehicle. After ascertaining the driver was not the suspect, but had loaned his car to the defendant, this witness proceeded to the address given and placed the defendant under arrest, advising the defendant of his rights at that time. This witness testified that the defendant admitted the assault described by the State's first witness.
The State's third witness, Broken Arrow Police Officer, Ronald Dean Stice, testified to receiving the defendant at police headquarters as a suspect in the assault, and to conversing with Officer Payne as to the reason for the arrest. This witness took the signed statement from the defendant, wherein he admitted the assault described above. As Officer Stice was returning the defendant to his cell, he testified the defendant made a statement as follows:
"Well, I've told you this much. I might as well tell you the rest.'
'And he told me that he had planned on pulling Mrs. McAnelly into the car, taking her out on a country road and raping her at that time.' (Tr. 272)
After which the State rested.
The defendant took the stand and testified in his own behalf that he had borrowed the car from a friend, and went to the car wash to wash the car prior to returning it. The defendant indicated he tripped on some object, and as he was falling, grabbed the complainant to keep from hitting the ground. He testified that after
Page 66
he regained his balance he released the victim. Further testimony indicated that he was wearing a temporary prosthesis 1 at the time of the incident and had been experiencing difficulty in walking with it.The defendant's second witness, Paula Jean Stark, testified to loaning the defendant a dirty car and then receiving it in a clean condition on that date.
The defendant's third witness, William R. Edmison, testified as to the difficulties encountered in the use of prosthetic devices, and the period of time required to adopt oneself to the use thereof. At this time, the defense rested.
The defendant's first assignment of error alleges that the police officer made a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor, lacking probable cause to believe any felony had been committed. We find this contention to be without merit. Booze v. State, Okl.Cr., 390 P.2d 261 (1964) quoting Darks v. State, Okl.Cr., 273 P.2d 880 (1954), sets out the applicable Oklahoma ruling in this area:
"If a . . . peace officer arrest a person without a warrant, he is not bound to show in his justification a felony actually committed, to render the arrest lawful, but if he suspects one on his own knowledge of facts; or upon facts communicated to him by others, and thereupon he has reasonable ground to believe that the accused has been guilty of felony, the arrest is not unlawful. . . .'
The facts in this case reveal the arresting officer knew an injured woman had entered the police station complaining of assault, relating words spoken by the assailant to the effect 'I don't want to have to hurt you.' An experienced police officer, aware of an evident evening attack on a lone woman with injury producing force, would be justified in believing some felony was intended beyond a simple battery.
Therefore basing our decision on the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe a felony had been committed. The complaining witness gave the headquarters officer the tag number of suspect's vehicle and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. State, No. F-88-501
...corroborated nor consistent with the physical evidence, the evidence was insufficient to return a verdict of guilt. In Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 63, 67-69 (Okl.Cr.1976), we adopted the rule stated in Opper that corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the defendant's sta......
-
Fontenot v. Allbaugh, No. CIV 16-069-JHP-KEW
...independently the other necessary elements of the offense. 348 U.S. at 93, 75 S.Ct. at 164, adopted by Oklahoma in Jones v. State , 555 P.2d 63, 68 (Okla.Crim.App. 1976). The Opper standard requires a confession actually have some resemblance to the known facts of the crime to show that the......
-
State v. Dunn, No. 17571
...without discussing the authority for such action. See, e.g., Wills v. State, 193 Ark. 182, 98 S.W.2d 72, 74 (1936); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 63, 69 (Okla.Crim.App.1976); Forsha v. State, 183 Tenn. 604, 194 S.W.2d 463, 467 (1946). Similarly, we have entered judgment on lesser included offens......
-
Stout v. State, No. F-80-470
...this rule was pronounced in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101 and adopted by this Court in Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 63 (Okl.Cr.1976). Our rule is that once substantial evidence of the corpus delicti is introduced, the confession of the defendant is admissible, ......
-
Williamson v. State, No. F-88-501
...corroborated nor consistent with the physical evidence, the evidence was insufficient to return a verdict of guilt. In Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 63, 67-69 (Okl.Cr.1976), we adopted the rule stated in Opper that corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the defendant's sta......
-
State v. Dunn, No. 17571
...without discussing the authority for such action. See, e.g., Wills v. State, 193 Ark. 182, 98 S.W.2d 72, 74 (1936); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 63, 69 (Okla.Crim.App.1976); Forsha v. State, 183 Tenn. 604, 194 S.W.2d 463, 467 (1946). Similarly, we have entered judgment on lesser included offens......
-
Fontenot v. Allbaugh, No. CIV 16-069-JHP-KEW
...independently the other necessary elements of the offense. 348 U.S. at 93, 75 S.Ct. at 164, adopted by Oklahoma in Jones v. State , 555 P.2d 63, 68 (Okla.Crim.App. 1976). The Opper standard requires a confession actually have some resemblance to the known facts of the crime to show that the......
-
Stout v. State, No. F-80-470
...this rule was pronounced in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101 and adopted by this Court in Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 63 (Okl.Cr.1976). Our rule is that once substantial evidence of the corpus delicti is introduced, the confession of the defendant is admissible, ......