Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. A--14395,A--14395 |
| Citation | 453 P.2d 319 |
| Parties | Johnnie Booker JONES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Record examined and evidence Held sufficient to establish that property in the defendant's possession was stolen property.
2. It is discretionary with the trial court to reopen a case for the purpose of introducing further evidence, and unless a clear abuse of such discretion appears, no question is presented for review on appeal.
3. Where the evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, the punishment imposed is well within the range provided by law, and the record is free of errors which would justify modification or reversal, the judgment and sentence appealed from will be affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; A. P. Van Meter, Judge.
Johnnie Booker Jones was convicted of the crime of Receiving Stolen Property, was sentenced to serve four years in the state penitentiary, and appeals. Affirmed.
Jo-Ann Fisher Corrigan, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Johnnie Booker Jones, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the crime of Receiving Stolen Property; his punishment was fixed at four years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, and he appeals.
Although the defendant argues several assignments of error, we deem only two of them to have sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion.
Defendant first contends that the evidence is wholly insufficient to establish that the property found in the possession of the defendant was stolen and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. Our examination of the testimony of Larry Emmer, both on direct examination prior to the State's resting, and on direct examination after the State was allowed to reopen, discloses that there was positive testimony that the property found in the possession of the defendant was stolen and we must therefore conclude that this assignment of error is without merit.
It is next contended that the trial court erred in allowing the State to reopen the case after the defendant had interposed a Demurrer to the evidence in chief. We have repeatedly held that it is discretionary with the trial court to reopen a case for the purpose of introducing further evidence, and unless a clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...is within the trial court's discretion. Guy v. State, 1989 OK CR 35, ¶ 19, 778 P.2d 470, 475; Jones v. State, 1969 OK CR 138, ¶ 4, 453 P.2d 319, 320. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial after the victim impact evidence was given, and when that motion was denied, counsel passed the witness ......
-
Guy v. State
...either the State or the defense to reopen after they have both closed is within the trial court's sound discretion. See Jones v. State, 453 P.2d 319, 320 (Okl.Cr.1969). In the instant case, the State reopened its case to elicit from a previous witness testimony which, through oversight, had......
-
Morgan v. State, F--75--490
...clearly appears, no question is presented for review on appeal. See Lewis v. State, Okl.Cr., 458 P.2d 309 (1969); Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 453 P.2d 319 (1969); and Sowle v. State, Okl.Cr., 424 P.2d 993 Finding no abuse of discretion, we are of the opinion that this assignment of error is wi......
-
Nottingham v. State
...allowing the State to reopen its case after having once rested and after the defendant demurred to the State's evidence. In Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 453 P.2d 319, we 'It is next contended that the trial court erred in allowing the State to reopen the case after the defendant had interposed ......