Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 01 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-238,F-77-238 |
| Citation | 567 P.2d 522 |
| Parties | Robert L. NELSON, 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, Robert L. Nelson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Pittsburg County, Case No. F-76-128, with the offense of Escape from Penitentiary in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 443. He was tried by a jury, convicted and sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the State penitentiary. From this judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows. On the 19th of June, 1976, while incarcerated in the Oklahoma State penitentiary for Robbery With Firearms, the defendant escaped from confinement. He was subsequently apprehended on the 22nd of June, 1976, and returned to the custody of the prison personnel.
The defendant's first assignment of error is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty. In support of this contention the defendant asserts that there was an insufficient showing of the reasons and grounds for which said defendant was incarcerated. With this we do not agree. During trial, the records supervisor of the Oklahoma State penitentiary testified from records subject to his supervision and control. These records showed that at the time of defendant's escape he was serving a sentence for Robbery With Firearms, Case No. CRF-72-3041, District Court, Oklahoma County.
The defendant contends that such evidence constituted hearsay, asserting that all the provisions of 12 O.S.1971, § 502, concerning public records, were not complied with. However, this Court need not reach the issue of compliance with 12 O.S.1971, § 502, for as this Court stated in Brinlee v. State, Okl.Cr., 543 P.2d 744 (1975), the common law concept of the business records exception to the hearsay rule is also applicable in Oklahoma. This assignment of error is without merit.
The defendant next asserts as error the trial court's failure to sustain his objection to the method used in the selection of the jury, and failure to grant his related motion for mistrial. In the instant case the court called a total of 22 jurors constituting the proposed panel of 12 jurors plus the 10 jurors subject to peremptory challenges by the State and the defense. This method allows all 22 potential jurors to be individually voir dired and challenged for cause before exercising peremptory challenges. This is analogous to the method outlined in 12 O.S.1971, § 575.1, except that the total number of potential jurors called, differ due to the difference in the number of peremptory challenges allowed in a felony prosecution, as opposed to a civil suit, and 22 O.S.1971, § 592, provides that:
"Trial juries for criminal actions may also be formed in the same manner as trial juries in civil actions."
Furthermore, this method...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...for cause and was allowed to exercise all of his peremptory challenges provided for by law. See Nelson v. State, 1977 OK CR 224, ¶ 5, 567 P.2d 522, 524 (recognizing similar method taken from Section 575.1 of Title 12, in accordance with Title 22, Section ¶ 9 We are not persuaded by Jones's ......
-
State v. Killebrew
...State v. Croney, 425 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Mo.1968); State v. Procter, 51 Ohio App.2d 151, 367 N.E.2d 908, 911 (1977); Nelson v. State, 567 P.2d 522, 524 (Okl.Cr.App.1977). ...
-
Vick v. State, F-85-69
...sanctions in addition to judicial punishment does not constitute double jeopardy, at least for the crime of escape. Nelson v. State, 567 P.2d 522, 524 (Okla.Crim.App.1977); Ex Parte Kirk, 96 Okl.Crim. 272, 252 P.2d 1032 (1953). However, he urges us to reconsider our position. We find the re......
-
DeRonde v. State
...proceeding violative of the prohibition against double jeopardy. See, Boyle v. State, 569 P.2d 1026 (Okl.Cr.1977); Nelson v. State, 567 P.2d 522 (Okl.Cr.1977); and Ex parte Kirk, 96 Okl.Cr. 272, 252 P.2d 1032 (1953); and see also, 21 O.S.1981, § 443a. II In his second assignment of error, t......