Murray v. State

Decision Date18 November 1974
Docket NumberNos. F--74--182 and F--74--218,s. F--74--182 and F--74--218
Citation528 P.2d 739
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
PartiesRonald Dean MURRAY, and Danny Lee Grizzie, Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellants, Ronald Dean Murray and Danny Lee Grizzle, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were charged and tried in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF--73--2426, for the offense of Murder in the First Degree. They were convicted for the offense of Murder in the Second Degree and their punishment was fixed at a term of not less than ten (10) years, nor more than Life imprisonment, and from said judgments and sentences timely appeals have been perfected to this Court.

Since these two defendants were tried together, and the results of both appeals are the same, we are consolidating the two appeals in this one Opinion.

We do not deem it necessary to recite the facts in this case due to the ultimate conclusion reached herein.

The defendants both contend that the trial court erred in refusint to grant their Motion for Severance. The granting or denying of a Motion for Severance is a discretionary matter with the trial court and this Court will not disturb the trial court's ruling, absent a showing that prejudice resulted therein. See Curcie v. State, Okl.Cr., 496 P.2d 387 (1972). However, in the instant case the respective defenses of Grizzle and Murray were mutually antagonistic. Grizzle's testimony and confession were such that only Murray could have done the shooting, while Murray's testimony and confession were such that only Grizzle could have done it.

Denial of a severance in the instant case resulted in pitting defendant against co-defendant. To try both together was, in effect, to try each on the confession of the other. The Illinois Supreme Court in the case of People v. Braune, 363 Ill. 551, 2 N.E.2d 839 (1936), recognized this situation where defense of co-defendants was mutually antagonistic, each exculpating himself and inculpating the other:

'The trial was in many respects more of a contest between the defendants than between the people and the defendants. It produced a spectacle where the people frequently stood by and witnessed a combat in which the defendants attempted to destroy each other. Any set of circumstances which is sufficient to deprive a defendant of a fair trial if tried jointly with another is sufficient to require a separate trial.'

Generally this Court, in the past, has held that any error created by reason of admitted confessions of a co-defendant which implicates the defendant is cured when the co-defendant takes the stand and is subject to cross-examination. In the instant case, it is our opinion, that both defendants had no alternative except to take the stand and defend himself against the other's confession blaming the killing on each other.

Each defendant was entitled to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Com. v. Sinnott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1987
    ...State v. Birbiglia, 149 La. 4, 30, 88 So. 533 (1921) (similar in that no eyewitness to murder testified at trial); Murray v. State, 528 P.2d 739, 740 (Okla.Crim.1974) (facts not recited); People v. Meisenhelter, 381 Ill. 378, 390, 45 N.E.2d 678 (1942) (prejudice not shown where defenses wer......
  • State v. Van Pham
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1984
    ...State v. Sully, 219 Kan. at 225, 547 P.2d 344. See also 75 Am.Jur.2d, Trial § 21. A good example of this situation is Murray v. State, 528 P.2d 739 (Okl.Cr.1974), where one defendant's testimony and confession was such only the codefendant could have committed the crime while the codefendan......
  • Com. v. Moran
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1982
    ...for the granting of a severance ... than a case where each defendant attempts to put the blame upon the other"). In Murray v. State, 528 P.2d 739 (Okla.Cr.App.1974), the defendants Murray and Grizzle were tried together and convicted of murder in the second degree. They appealed, contending......
  • State v. Grisby
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1982
    ...for Criminal Justice, Std. 13-3.2(c) (2d ed. 1980), citing State v. Holup, 167 Conn. 240, 355 A.2d 119 (1974) and Murray v. State, 528 P.2d 739 (Okl.Crim.App.1974). While our rule does not parallel exactly the ABA rule, if anything, it establishes a more liberal standard for severance: cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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