Oliver v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-254,F-77-254 |
| Citation | 568 P.2d 1327 |
| Parties | Alton Cooper OLIVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Alton Cooper Oliver, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-76-2110, with the offense of Sale of Amphetamine, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1975, § 2-401, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 51. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict of guilty was returned. Punishment was assessed at fifteen (15) years' imprisonment. From judgment and sentence defendant has perfected an appeal to this Court.
The evidence at trial showed that at about 8:30 p.m. on May 25, 1976, William Shadrick, a police informant working for police in return for a recommendation of leniency on a pending charge, met with several police officers at a restaurant. Subsequently, they went to a judge's house where a warrant was obtained. At about 9:30 p.m. Shadrick left the judge's house in his own automobile, followed by the officers in another car. Shadrick drove to defendant's house and entered alone, after being received at the door by the defendant. Shadrick indicated to the defendant that he wished to buy drugs and a pistol. They went upstairs, and the price, $100.00, was paid with marked money supplied to Shadrick by the police. Immediately after the transaction occurred a knock was heard at the front door. Defendant answered the door and observed his wife, who stated that the police were outside. At that moment several officers came in. A search warrant was served, and defendant was arrested. Shadrick turned the pistol and a white powdery substance over to Detective Scott, who gave them to Detective Koontz. Koontz transported the white substance to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Chemistry Laboratory, where it was analyzed by Rodney Sherrer. Sherrer testified that it contained amphetamine.
Detectives Koontz and Scott testified that they had originally planned to wait outside defendant's home until Shadrick had completed his purchase and left, and that after they had obtained the drugs from Shadrick they were going to serve the search warrant. However, defendant's wife arrived and observed them waiting outside, so the officers decided to go in before any evidence could be destroyed.
Defendant presented no evidence. In proof of the after former charge, the State showed that in 1970 the defendant was convicted of forgery.
Defendant's first assignment of error alleges there was improper introduction of evidence of other crimes. In this respect the transcript reflects that in response to questions by the prosecutor, Shadrick stated that he and defendant had discussed drugs on prior occasions, and that Shadrick had purchased drugs from defendant "many times," though not while working for any police agency. The discussion reflecting this occupied three pages of the transcript. The State urges, while recognizing the general rule of inadmissibility of evidence of other crimes, that this evidence tends to show a "common scheme or plan," and was therefore admissible.
We are of the opinion that this evidence should not have been admitted over defendant's objections. Mere similarity of crimes is not enough. In Atnip v. State, Okl.Cr., 564 P.2d 660 (1977), in dealing with this same issue, we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...given to the jury. For a like disposition of this issue, see our opinion in Gee v. State, 538 P.2d 1102 (Okl.Cr.1975). See Oliver v. State, 568 P.2d 1327 (Okl.Cr.1977). Appellant made a pretrial motion for change of venue based on adverse publicity. The trial judge reserved ruling on the mo......
-
Burks v. State
...the defendant is on trial. See, for instance, Hauschildt v. State, Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 77 (1976); Atnip v. State, supra; Oliver v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1327 (1977); Chandler v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 285 (1977); Breshers v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 561 (1977); Galindo v. State, Okl.Cr.,......
- Henager v. State
-
Wooldridge v. State, F-81-108
...Number 6, under the facts of this case, did not in any way constitute a substantial violation of appellant's rights. Oliver v. State, 568 P.2d 1327 (Okl.Cr.1977). In fact, Instruction Number 1 restated the charging portion of the information, which included the allegation that the crime had......