Maynard v. State
| Decision Date | 19 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. F-79-685,F-79-685 |
| Parties | Larry MAYNARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Larry Maynard, was convicted of Shooting With Intent to Kill, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-76-156 pursuant to 21 O.S.1971, § 652, now 21 O.S.Supp.1980, § 652 and 21 O.S.Supp.1980, § 51. The jury assessed punishment at twelve (12) years' imprisonment.
On the night of January 16, 1976, Officer Carl Stoops, Tulsa Police Department, while on street patrol, stopped two men after observing them milling around the hallway of an apartment building. One of the suspects identified himself as Ronnie Maynard and the other person, later identified by the police officers as the appellant, gave the name "Haney."
Officer Cleary drove up and was informed of the situation. All four of the men rode in the police car to a car Ronnie Maynard indicated that he was driving. Officer Stoops testified that he looked in that car and observed a purse half full of change lying open on the seat. He then turned, saw the appellant pull a metallic object from his pants and screamed to Officer Cleary: "The S.O.B. has got a gun." As the officers scrambled for cover, the appellant fired a shot and began to run. Officer Cleary testified that he observed a white, roundish ball of fire flash from the weapon indicating that he was in the direct line of fire. The appellant fired a second shot and the officers returned fire. The appellant escaped and was not apprehended that night. No one was injured.
We will first consider the appellant's last assignment of error in which he claims that the evidence was insufficient to justify a conviction and the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict. A motion for directed verdict, in substance, admits the facts the evidence tends to prove. Where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the allegations of the charge, the trial court should not sustain a motion for directed verdict. Byrne v. State, 482 P.2d 620 (Okl.Cr.1971). This Court finds that the trial court correctly overruled the motion for directed verdict.
Furthermore, this Court has held that if the appellant complains of insufficient evidence and asserts error from the overruling of his motion for directed verdict, the Court of Criminal Appeals will look to the entire record. Walker v. State, 512 P.2d 208 (Okl.Cr.1973). After a review of the record, we find there was substantial evidence presented from which the jury could conclude the appellant, Larry Maynard, shot at Officer Cleary with intent to kill. As stated in Jones v. State, 468 P.2d 805 (Okl.Cr.1970), where competent evidence is found in the record from which the jury could reasonably determine the guilt of the appellant, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not interfere with the verdict as it is within the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.
Secondly, the appellant contends the trial court erred by continually permitting the district attorney and State's witnesses to refer to the appellant's possible involvement in the burglary of parking meters. The appellant refers specifically to the testimony of Officer Stoops concerning recent parking meter burglaries, the proximity of the suspects to parking meters in the area of initial encounter, and the coins observed on the seat of the suspect's car.
The rule is well settled that a defendant is to be tried and convicted, if at all, on the evidence of the charge against him and evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible. Frye v. State, 606 P.2d 599 (Okl.Cr.1980). However, in his opening statement the appellant placed the other crimes evidence before the jury. He also failed to enter a timely objection at the introduction of the other crimes evidence. This Court has repeatedly held that a party may not complain of error which he himself invited or waived. Luker v. State, 504 P.2d 1238 (Okl.Cr.1973).
Later in the trial, after the trial judge had interrupted witness Stoops as he began to testify about the parking meter burglaries, the appellant solicited testimony from the officer that there was no evidence of parking meter burglaries in the area on the night in question. Therefore, any error caused by evidence of other crimes was rendered harmless by this testimony.
The appellant next argues that he was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moxley v. Aldridge
...Moxley had introduced that issue in her opening statement. Welch v. State, 2 P.3d 356, 369 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000); Maynard v. State,625 P.2d 111, 113 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). The record does not show that Moxley raised her own character as an issue either through defense witnesses or throu......
-
Revilla v. State
...that a party may not complain of error which he himself invited. Staggs v. State, 719 P.2d 1297, 1299 (Okl.Cr.1986); Maynard v. State, 625 P.2d 111, 113 (Okl.Cr.1981). Appellant also objects to the testimony of Dr. Balding of the Medical Examiners Office that he was familiar with a particul......
-
Lee v. State
...1187 (Okl.Cr.1980). And, as here, where the appellant complains of insufficient evidence, we look to the entire record. Maynard v. State, 625 P.2d 111 (Okl.Cr.1981). We find that after such a review, the jury had before it sufficient competent evidence, although circumstantial, from which i......
-
West v. State, F-88-1094
...or his counsel in the first instance invited by their own conduct. Staggs v. State, 719 P.2d 1297, 1294 (Okl.Cr.1986), Maynard v. State, 625 P.2d 111, 113 (Okl.Cr.1981). When Appellant was unable to obtain a continuance in order to secure Mrs. Stone's testimony, he attempted to admit her st......