Lyles v. State

Decision Date03 September 1958
Docket NumberNo. A-12595,A-12595
PartiesEdward Lee LYLES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

1. The adoption of the canons of ethics by the courts did not give the canons force of law. They are nothing more than a system of principles of exemplary conduct and good character. They are recommended to the bench and bar as patterns which, if adhered to, will promote respect for the bar and better administration of justice. They are subject to modification to meet the conditions of changing times in keeping with the Constitutional rights of the people.

2. Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma provides: 'Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.'

3. Freedom of the press as guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions is not confined to newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets, and the right to distribute but these provisions of free press extend to broadcasting and television.

4. The courts make no distinction between various methods of communication in sustaining freedom of the press.

5. Freedom of press is not a discriminate right, but the equal right of news gathering and disseminating agencies, subject only to the restrictions against abuse and injurious use to individual or public rights and welfare.

6. Article II, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury * * *.'

7. That the courts of Oklahoma must be open to every person is a matter of public policy, since both the accused and the public are interested in knowing how their servants, the judge, county attorney, sheriff, and court clerk conduct public business.

8. The courts, in certain unusual circumstances, may restrict the attendance of the public for various sound reasons which, under proper circumstances, might include some press and television representatives, but they cannot under the Constitution exclude the public generally or entirely.

9. A trial is a public event and what transpires in the court room is public property. Those who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity. There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.

10. If, at any time, the representatives of the press in any field of activity interfere with the orderly conduct of court procedure, or create distractions interfering therewith, the court has the inherent power to put an immediate stop to such conduct. No claim of justification on the ground of freedom of the press would be available to those guilty of such offensive conduct.

11. Where court proceedings may be taken for reproduction, on sound track and television, without disruption or in a manner not degrading to the court and without infringement upon any fundamental right of the accused, such agencies should be permitted so to do within reasonable rules prescribed by the courts.

12. When one becomes identified with an occurrence of public or general interest, he emerges from his seclusion and it is not an invasion of his right of privacy to publish his photograph or to otherwise give publicity to his connection with that event. The law does not recognize a right of privacy in connection with that which is inherently a public matter.

13. Courts should not tolerate conditions of either distraction or disturbance to the proceedings and should at all times be master of the forum.

14. In every case of photographing and televising court proceedings, to avoid dislocation of the trial or proceeding, the setting should be prearranged so that the trial court may, upon proper objection, instantly suspend the making of photographs and sound recording, otherwise, the right should be withheld.

15. The press and broadcasting interests of Oklahoma should perfect the organization of a permanent association for pooling their facilities so that whenever any of the member stations wish to cover a given trial, they will communicate with the secretary who will carry the request to the judge. Should the judge decree that radio and television coverage will be permitted, he need deal with only one individual, the secretary, in laying down the ground rules for such coverage. Having reached a clear understanding where the microphones and cameras shall be placed in the courtroom, the secretary shall then make the necessary arrangements for equipment and personnel, and the judge must be fully satisfied with the installation before the trial begins.

16. The matter of televising or not televising, photographing or not photographing criminal trials and proceedings, subject to the hereinbefore suggested judicial standards, is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge.

17. Striking matter from an information by which the burden of the defense is diminished constitutes no basis for a contention of error.

18. Where the jury has just been informed by the county attorney in his opening statement the defendant pled not guilty, a slip of the tongue statement that the defendant pled guilty, which is immediately corrected in an apologetic manner, does not constitute reversible error.

19. A motion to suppress must be timely filed and presented, and objection to the introduction of evidence must be made or the ground for asserting invalidity of the evidence is waived.

20. In a burglary case, proof of the breaking and entering and stealing of property establishes the corpus delicti, and the defendant's undisputed confession and the undenied finding of personal property of the accused at the scene of the crime supplies the element of identification necessary to connect the defendant with the crime, which, in the absence of anything to the contrary, makes out a case, if believed by the jury, sufficient to sustain a conviction.

21. Where the instructions given by the trial court contain a fair and substantial statement of the law, given without objection by the defendant and without request by him for other or different instructions, in the absence of fundamental error, the defendant will be held to have waived any objection to the instructions.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; W. R. Wallace, Jr., Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Edward Lee Lyles, was convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree after former conviction of a felony and he appeals. Affirmed.

Gordon L. Patten, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

Lytle, Johnston & Soule, Oklahoma City, amicus curiae.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Edward Lee Lyles, defendant below, was charged by information in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, with the crime of burglary in the second degree after former conviction of a felony. He was tried by a jury, convicted, and the jury being unable to agree on the punishment, left the same to be fixed by the trial court. The trial court assessed the punishment at fifteen years in the state penitentiary. Judgment and sentence were entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

In presenting his appeal, the defendant makes numerous assignments of error but presents them in four propositions. First, he contends the trial court committed error in not granting a mistrial for the reason television cameras were permitted in the courtroom, and pictures taken in front of the jury panel were prejudicial to this defendant, and prevented him from having a fair trial. The evidence on this point consists only of proof that television pictures were taken while the court was not in session; that the jury had not been selected; that television pictures were taken during a five minute recess of the court; and that most of the pictures were made of the defendant, some while the jury panel was out of the room and some while it was present, or at least some members of the panel. Upon this showing the trial court overruled the defendant's motion for a mistrial. The defendant objected to the taking of any further pictures and the trial court ordered that no further pictures be taken. The defendant asserts that the newspaper articles and the taking of television pictures gave great weight to the importance of the trial so that the defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial, all in violation of his constitutional rights, as well as being contrary to Rule 35, Canons of Ethics as promulgated by the American Bar Association, which reads as follows:

'Canon 35. Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings.

'Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the court room during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceedings are calculated to detract from the essential dignity of the proceedings, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public and should not be permitted.

'Provided that this restriction shall not apply to the broadcasting or televising, under the supervision of the court, of such portions of naturalization proceedings (other than the interrogation of applicants) as are designed and carried out exclusively as a ceremony for the purpose of publicly demonstrating in an impressive manner the essential dignity and the serious nature of naturalization.'

The adoption of the canons of ethics by the courts did not give the canons force of law. They are nothing more than a system of principles of exemplary conduct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Estes v. State of Texas
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1965
    ...and Texas permit televising of trials in the discretion of the trial judge. The current situation in Oklahoma is unclear. In Lyles v. State, 330 P.2d 734 (1958), the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma stated that the televising of proceedings was in the discretion of the trial judge. In ......
  • Collier v. Reese
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 17, 2009
    ...and that person becomes a public figure in which the public has more than an ordinary interest. See Lyles v. State, 1958 OK CR 79, ¶ 10, 330 P.2d 734. 29. Although the criminal charges were later dismissed, see discussion ¶ 8, page 8, fn 7, supra, at the time the trial court decided the pri......
  • Stahl v. State, s. M-80-326
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 22, 1983
    ...circulate information or opinion." This Court further interpreted our free speech, free press constitutional provision in Lyles v. State, 330 P.2d 734 (Okl.Cr.1958), when we upheld a trial court's decision to permit television cameras in the courtroom during a criminal trial. In speaking of......
  • Polin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 19, 1975
    ...Spar Co., 20 N.J.Misc. 314, 26 A.2d 567 (1939).6 Cf. Hazlitt v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 116 F.Supp. 538 (D.Conn.1953); Lyles v. State, 330 P.2d 734 (Okl.Cr.1958). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • TV or not TV - that is the question.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 No. 3, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...properly, newsgathering and disseminating agencies have equal rights in this matter), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1069 (1984); Lyles v. State, 330 P.2d 734 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958) (court eliminated the prohibition on cameras in the courtroom, holding that the public has a right of access to judic......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT