Parsons v. State

Citation603 P.2d 1144
Decision Date27 November 1979
Docket NumberNo. M-79-61,M-79-61
PartiesKenneth R. PARSONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellant, Kenneth R. Parsons, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Love County, Case No. CRM-78-176, for the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, in violation of 47 O.S.1971, § 11-902. His punishment was fixed at ten (10) days in the county jail and a One Hundred Dollar ($100.00) fine. From said judgment and sentence an appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We will discuss initially defendant's second assignment of error. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at trial in two respects: first, the evidence was insufficient to show that the arresting Highway Patrol trooper had a legal right to arrest defendant and second, the evidence was rendered insufficient by the trooper's inability to identify defendant's automobile as one of those clocked on radar at excessive speeds at the commencement of the chase which led to defendant's arrest. At trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Highway Patrol Trooper Leon Brown. The trooper's testimony was that on the evening of August 5, 1978, he clocked two vehicles traveling southbound on Interstate 35 at speeds in excess of 102 miles per hour. He took up pursuit and followed them until one turned off the Interstate at the Thackerville exit. The trooper also took the Thackerville exit and continued pursuit, the other vehicle having proceeded on down the Interstate and merged with other traffic. The trooper observed the car he was following run two stop signs, weave erratically and run off the roadway several times before finally coming to a stop. Trooper Brown advised the sole occupant, defendant, of his Miranda rights and administered a Breathalyzer test. The test indicated a .14% Blood alcohol content and the trooper observed an open bottle of liquor on the front seat of the car. Defendant's contentions that the evidence is rendered insufficient by the trooper's inability to identify defendant's car by make and model as one of the two vehicles clocked on radar and that no probable cause existed for the arrest are patently frivolous. Trooper Brown's testimony that the car driver ran stop signs, weaved erratically and left the roadway was ample to justify the arrest as for a misdemeanor committed in the trooper's presence. The trooper's further testimony that the defendant was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Romano v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 13 Enero 1993
    ...and surmise is insufficient upon which to cause reversal". Chatham v. State, 712 P.2d 69, 71 (Okl.Cr.1986). See also Parsons v. State, 603 P.2d 1144, 1146 (Okl.Cr.1979). The record in the present case is absolutely barren of anything other than speculation or surmise by defense counsel. Jud......
  • Woodruff v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 13 Enero 1993
    ...and surmise is insufficient upon which to cause reversal". Chatham v. State, 712 P.2d 69, 71 (Okl.Cr.1986). See also Parsons v. State, 603 P.2d 1144, 1146 (Okl.Cr.1979). The record in the present case is absolutely barren of anything other than speculation or surmise by defense counsel. Jud......
  • Hale v. State, F-84-208
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 29 Enero 1988
    ...Frye v. State, 606 P.2d 599 (Okl.Cr.1980). Neither juror was challenged for cause, and is not now subject to challenge. Parsons v. State, 603 P.2d 1144 (Okl.Cr.1979). XV Appellant relies upon Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), for the proposition t......
  • Peters v. State, F-84-15
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 13 Enero 1986
    ...a witness was not alone sufficient to require removal of a juror for cause. Cook v. State, 650 P.2d 863 (Okl.Cr.1982); Parsons v. State, 603 P.2d 1144 (Okl.Cr.1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okl.Cr.1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 940, 98 S.Ct. 432, 54 L.Ed.2d 300; Blozy v. State, 557......

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