Lane v. State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-333,F-77-333 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 991 |
| Parties | Jack Roger LANE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Jack Roger Lane, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, McIntosh County, Case No. CRF-76-38, with the offense of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 701.2. The case was tried to a jury, and a guilty verdict was returned. A mandatory sentence of ten (10) years to life imprisonment was imposed. From said judgment and sentence defendant has perfected a timely appeal to this Court.
Defendant was charged with killing his wife, Karen Fern Lane, with a shotgun in their mobile home on June 10, 1976. Two neighbors of defendant, John West and Lydia Gilbert, observed defendant arrive home in his jeep at about 6:30 p. m. on that date. West testified that he observed defendant drive up and enter defendant's mobile home. Thereafter he heard noises and loud voices coming from the mobile home, and subsequently heard two gunshots. West called the sheriff, and then observed the defendant leave in the jeep. The witness went over to defendant's mobile home and observed Karen Lane lying on the ground in the yard. Lydia Gilbert testified that she was working in her garden on the date and time aforesaid, which garden adjoins defendant's yard, and that she observed defendant arrive home and enter his mobile home. Defendant then called his wife, who had been in the yard with their two small daughters. The witness testified that as Karen Lane approached the mobile home the Lane's two daughters ran over to the witness and stated "my daddy is going to kill our mommy." Thereafter, the witness observed that as Karen opened the door to the mobile home defendant struck her in the head with his fist and she fell inside the door. Shortly thereafter, the witness heard a scuffle and then a gunshot. Karen then exited the mobile home bleeding, and defendant came out after her, holding a gun. Karen walked about ten feet, defendant called her name and she turned around and walked back a few steps toward the porch, where she collapsed. Defendant then told the witness to get a doctor and fired over her head when she did not move. The witness then left and called the sheriff, and defendant left in his jeep.
Jimmy Nixon, Eufaula police officer, was dispatched to the defendant's home by the sheriff's office. On the way he picked up Tom Bevans, a security guard. They then encountered defendant in his jeep and both the witness and defendant brought their vehicles to a halt, at which point defendant was arrested. In the jeep was a .20 gauge sawed-off shotgun, State's Exhibit No. 1.
Ray Kirkpatrick, Deputy Sheriff, found two empty .20 gauge shotgun shells at the scene of the homicide, one in the mobile home and one outside. Donald Beaver, Sheriff of McIntosh County, testified as to the chain of custody of some of the evidence. Dr. Bellamy, pathologist, stated that Karen Fern Lane died from a single shotgun blast to the abdomen. Numerous pellets and a shotgun wadding were recovered from the body and turned over to authorities. Carl Cloud, firearms examiner for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, received the gun and the pellets and the shotgun shells and performed various tests thereon. By examining the blouse which deceased was wearing in conjunction with the tests which he performed on the shotgun, he was able to determine that if the shotgun were the murder weapon, deceased was standing from three to five feet from the end of the barrel at the time the shot was fired. However, Cloud stated that his tests were inconclusive as to whether or not State's Exhibit No. 1, the shotgun seized at the time of defendant's arrest, was the murder weapon.
Defendant took the stand in his own behalf and testified that when he arrived home he called his wife to ask her if he had any clean shirts. Defendant further testified that he had just come from town where he had been playing pool and drinking a few beers, and that when he informed his wife that he was going back for the same reason she became angry. She went into the bedroom and he turned to get a drink of water. When he turned around she was pointing the shotgun at him, and she told him he was not going back into town. He approached her and grabbed the shotgun, and a tugging match ensued. In the process of wrestling the gun from her he stumbled, fell back and the gun went off. His wife then walked out the door and he followed, not aware that he had shot her until she turned around. He then told Mrs. Gilbert to call a doctor, but she hesitated so he fired a shot into the air to make her hurry. Further, he twice tried to call the sheriff but the line was busy so he left in his jeep in order to summon aid for his wife. Defendant also denied sawing off the barrel or the stock of the shotgun, to the point where it was illegal, although he admitted that he had once sawed off a few inches of the barrel.
On rebuttal, Eugene Doyle testified that defendant told him he planned to cut off the barrel to a length of 13 inches. The witness testified that he informed defendant that it was a crime to do so, but defendant stated he was going to do so anyway.
Defendant contends in his first assignment of error that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling his demurrer to the wording of the information. We decline to consider this contention inasmuch as it was not properly preserved. Title 22 O.S.1971, § 503, states:
"Both the demurrer and the plea must be put in open court, either at the time of the arraignment or at such time as may be allowed to the defendant for that purpose."
Defendant filed a written demurrer to the information and apparently argued it to the preliminary magistrate, who overruled it. Thereafter, but prior to formal arraignment, defendant presented and argued his motion to quash the preliminary hearing or set aside the information. This motion was heard by the Honorable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. State, F-79-365
...(Okl.Cr.1977). No error occurred, nor did the defense state the specific grounds for objection on this point at trial. See Lane v. State, 572 P.2d 991 (Okl.Cr.1978). VIII During the formal sentencing proceedings a television camera, a still camera, and a radio sound device were permitted in......
-
Mitchell v. State
...255, 259 (Okl.Cr.1968); Padillow v. State, 501 P.2d 837, 841 (Okl.Cr.1972); Voran v. State, 536 P.2d 1322 (Okl.Cr.1975); Lane v. State, 572 P.2d 991, 994 (Okl.Cr.1978); Douma v. State, 749 P.2d 1163, 1167 (Okl.Cr.1988); Scott v. State, 751 P.2d 758, 760 (Okl.Cr.1988); Stewart v. State, 757 ......
-
Collums v. State
...note at the outset that appellant failed to present any written requested instructions covering these areas of law. See Lane v. State, 572 P.2d 991, 993-94 (Okl.Cr.1977). Moreover, we have repeatedly held, "[w]hen a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the st......
-
Phillips v. State
...alternative instructions for the trial court to consider, which results in a waiver of any objection to the instruction. Lane v. State, 572 P.2d 991 (Okl.Cr.1978). The fourth proposition of error asserts that the trial court erred by overruling the defendant's demurrers to the State's evide......