Littlejohn v. State, F-83-352
| Decision Date | 07 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. F-83-352,F-83-352 |
| Citation | 713 P.2d 22 |
| Parties | Donald Ray LITTLEJOHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Donald Ray Littlejohn was sentenced by the Honorable Raymond Naifeh, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, to twenty years' imprisonment for the crime of Burglary in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1981, §§ 1431 and 51 in Case No. CRF-82-4543. The trial was before a jury, which found Littlejohn guilty of Burglary After a Former Conviction but declined to set a term of years. On appeal, we reverse.
On the evening of September 11, 1981, Helen Pierce's home was burglarized. Mrs. Pierce and Dolores Douglas, a houseguest that evening, retired at 9:30 p.m. after locking up the house. Mrs. Douglas asleep on the couch in the living room, was awakened at 10:00 p.m. by the light coming through the kitchen window from a backyard spotlight. She saw a man wearing a baseball cap standing in the dining room. She crawled to Mrs. Pierce's bedroom where the women called Mr. Douglas. When the two women went to investigate, they saw no one in the house, but the front door was slightly ajar. The women turned on the porch light and waited for Mr. Douglas.
Mr. Douglas and his daughter Cynthia drove the five minute distance to the Pierce residence. While Mr. Douglas was at the door, Cynthia saw a man walk from between Mrs. Pierce's house and the house next door. She yelled to her father. The man looked at them and walked on westwardly. Both Cynthia and her father identified the appellant as the man they had seen that night wearing jeans, a black T-shirt and a "Coors" cap.
After Cynthia went in the Pierce home, Mr. Douglas drove after the man and soon saw someone duck behind a car a few houses down. He returned his car to the Pierce house and began to walk back down the street. Mr. Douglas apprehended the appellant a few houses down behind a car parked in front of a house belonging to the appellant's uncle. The appellant told Douglas he was in the area to burglarize a car.
Douglas took the appellant back to the Pierce home. The police were summoned. The police advised the appellant of his Miranda rights and attempted to question him. Meanwhile, another officer returned to the car where Douglas had apprehended the appellant. The officer found a "Slim-jim" on the ground by the car.
The next morning at jail, the appellant was interrogated again by a different officer. He claimed he was in the neighborhood to steal a car stereo and denied breaking into the Pierce home.
The appellant complains that comments made regarding his refusal to give up his right to remain silent prejudiced him at trial. The first comment came about innocently. In camera, Officer Clark testified that after he administered Miranda warnings upon arresting the appellant, he requested the appellant's name and address, which the appellant provided. Clark then asked what he was doing in the area, and the appellant replied he was just out "walking".
When the jury returned, however, Officer Clark testified that following the Miranda warnings the appellant was asked if he wanted to make a statement "and he stated no, he did not". Before ruling on defense counsel's motion for mistrial the court allowed the prosecutor to continue direct examination.
Q. Did the Defendant actually make a statement or talk with you at the time you advised him of his Miranda Rights?
A. No, sir, he simply just made an inaudible sound. I took it at that time that he did not wish to say anything right then. (Tr. 183).
The same question, in slightly different form, was repeated a moment later with virtually the same answer. The court subsequently overruled the motion for mistrial and refused to admonish the jury.
The prosecutor later reopened the line of questioning as to a conversation in the police car on the way to the jail.
Q. But you didn't ask him pointedly about the break in or the alleged break in of Mrs. Pierce's house?
A. I did.
Q. Pardon?
A. I did.
Q. On the way downtown?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said nothing.
Q. Just did not respond?
A. Did not respond. (Tr. 200).
The defense again objected and moved for a mistrial. A discussion at the bench reveals that all parties knew they were "on dangerous ground" because the defendant never made a statement to Officer Clark.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. State, F-95-84
...testimony, the evidence would not have been sufficient to convict absent this erroneous argument and instruction. In Littlejohn v. State, 713 P.2d 22 (Okl.Cr.1986), this Court ruled that where the circumstantial evidence was weak, continued questioning about Littlejohn's post-arrest silence......
-
Coates v. State, F-86-68
...outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, [and] misleading the jury...." See Littlejohn v. State, 713 P.2d 22, 24 (Okla.Crim.App.1986). On one occasion, the State initiated inquiry into certain statements allegedly made by appellant regarding her feelings for Ha......
-
Ford v. State
...improper evidence to amount to reversible error. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976) and Littlejohn v. State, 713 P.2d 22, (Okl.Cr.1986). The appellant further complains he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. As the prosecutor was cross-exam......
-
Wall v. State
...for showing to the jury that the defendant is a person who deserves to be punished." Burks, 594 P.2d at 775. See also Littlejohn v. State, 713 P.2d 22, 24 (Okl.Cr.1986) (Even assuming the evidence had probative value, its highly prejudicial nature would cause its exclusion under § Therefore......