Newton v. State, A--18209
| Decision Date | 30 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. A--18209,A--18209 |
| Citation | 516 P.2d 827 |
| Parties | Lloyd Sedrick NEWTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Lloyd Sedrick Newton, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Case No. CRF--72--917, for the offense of Attempted Burglary in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony. His punishment was fixed at ten (10) years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. From said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The evidence adduced at the trial reflects that Doris W. Hutchinson, who resides in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, arrived at her home about 9:30 or 10:00 on the evening of April 15, 1972. She was in the process of taking a bath when a car entered her driveway with its lights off. Four men similarly dressed approached her house, two at the front door and two at the back door. They began knocking at the door and when she asked who they were all she could hear was mumbling and cursing. The back door glass, two kitchen windows and one window in the front door were broken. Ms. Hutchinson became frightened and began shooting through the back door. Before she started shooting, the man at the back door, after knocking out the window, reached inside through the broken window in an effort to open the locked door. The witness testified that she only saw the shadow of the man, did not identify him to be the defendant, and stated that she did not recognize any voices. She then notified the Oklahoma City Police and, when they arrived, gave them her gun.
The witness further testified that she gave no one permission to enter her home on that particular evening, and that she did not know the defendant although she had seen him once or twice next door. She was able to identify his pictures.
J. E. Jones, an Oklahoma City Police Officer, then testified that he was called to the Hutchinson home on the evening in question where he found Ms. Hutchinson in her living room. The back screen door lock had been torn loose and the back door window had been broken. There were six small holes in the shade covering the back door window and glass was found on the back porch and some just inside the house.
Approximately thirty to forty-five minutes later, Officer Jones went to University Hospital where other officers had the defendant, who had been wounded by a gunshot in the chest, in custody. Officer Jones then made an in-court identification of the defendant as being the man who was in custody at the hospital. The officer then testified that Ms. Hutchinson had given him a .32-caliber six-shot revolver and that the gun, spent cartridges and three live rounds were sent to the Oklahoma State Crime Bureau Laboratory for analysis.
Officer Jones further testified on cross-examination that Ms. Hutchinson had given him a physical description of a man she saw running from the house after the shots were fired. He was described as being approximately 6 feet 3 inches in height, weighing 230 to 240 pounds and being 22 to 25 years of age. He also identified the gun taken from Ms. Hutchinson.
Dr. Donald Garrett then testified that on the evening in question he treated the defendant for a superficial gunshot wound in the chest. Upon removing the bullet, the doctor marked same with his initials and gave it to the police.
Ray Lambert then testified that he was a firearms examiner for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and that the lead bullet taken from the defendant's wound was a .32-caliber. Mr. Lambert stated that he had test fired the Hutchinson weapon, but that ballistic tests were inconclusive due to the condition of the bullet taken from the defendant's wound.
Officer R. A. Jones of the Oklahoma City Police Department then testified that on the evening in question he was called to the University Hospital to investigate a shooting report. The defendant, the shooting victim, told the officers that he had passed two people who were arguing, heard two shots, later determined that he had been wounded and had a friend drive him to the hospital. The officer was later advised by other officers that there had been an attempted burglary and that a Negro male, 6 feet 2 inches in height, 200 pounds, and possibly named Lloyd Newton might have been shot. The defendant was further questioned after being advised of his constitutional rights and stated that he was the owner of a white over red 1960 Pontiac. The officer then made an in-court identification of the defendant.
After the State rested and after the defendant's demurrer was overruled, the defendant called Marvin Williams. Mr. Williams testified that he was a friend of the defendant and that around April he had taken the defendant on two or three occasions to see a woman named Doris. The defendant had referred to the home as 'my lady's house.' Williams described the home as being similar to the Hutchinson home and being located on the same street, but could not provide a positive address.
Georgia Lee Newton then testified that she was the defendant's mother and that she had met the complaining witness one time in the Newton home when Ms. Hutchinson came by to pick up the defendant and take him to her home. Mrs. Newton further testified that she had had several telephone conversations with the complaining witness and that said conversations intimated that the complaining witness and the defendant had more than a casual relationship.
After the defendant rested, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the crime of Attempted Burglary in the First Degree. The second stage of the proceeding was then held after which the defendant was found guilty as charged in the Information.
The defendant's first contention urges that the trial court erred in failing to sustain the defendant's demurrer to the evidence. With this contention we cannot agree. The record reflects that Ms. Hutchinson was an eyewitness to an attempted breaking and entering. The defendant argues, however, that the State failed to prove a specific intent to commit a felony inside the Hutchinson home. This Court has held on many occasions that in a burglary case, where breaking and entering is definitely proved, the fact that the defendant had no opportunity to commit a felony inside the building before his apprehension was not controlling on the question of his intent. Cherry v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 280. The same general rule of law is applicable when there has been definite proof of an attempted breaking and entering. Whether one intends to commit a crime in a house is determined by the intent of the individual at the time the unlawful entry or attempt is made. Logan v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 76, 239 P.2d 1044....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowland v. State, F-87-832
...to commit a crime at the time of his unlawful entry of the dwelling. See Newsom v. State, 763 P.2d 135, 140 (Okl.Cr.1988); Newton v. State, 516 P.2d 827 (Okl.Cr.1973). Hence, in a burglary case, where breaking and entering is definitely proven, the fact that defendant had no opportunity to ......
-
Renfro v. State
...is within the province of the jury, and they may believe one witness while discrediting several other witnesses. In Newton v. State, Okl.Cr., 516 P.2d 827 (1973), the accused also complained of inconsistencies in statements made by the complaining witness. We there rejected the argument as ......
-
Durant v. State
...have held it is error for the judge to have discussions with a member of the jury outside the presence of defense counsel, Newton v. State, 516 P.2d 827 (Okl.Cr.1973), we find here that appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice. Campbell v. State, 652 P.2d 305 (Okl.Cr.198......
-
Reynolds v. State, F-76-471
...(1962). In the instant case, the trial court thoroughly questioned the juror and was satisfied that he was impartial. In Newton v. State, Okl.Cr., 516 P.2d 827 (1973), we considered a similar situation and found that the trial court had not abused its discretion by refusing to grant a mistr......