Paschall v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11667,A-11667 |
| Citation | 96 Okla.Crim. 198,252 P.2d 175 |
| Parties | PASCHALL v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstance thereof. This does not mean a separate and complete proof of a crime, but only that there should be some evidence of material facts in addition to the testimony of the accomplice tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged. Held: that the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice.
2. The trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion may permit the name of a witness to be endorsed upon the information even after the trial has commenced. If defendant's counsel is surprised at such action and such endorsement of an additional witness requires a production of further testimony by defendant, he should withdraw his announcement of ready for trial and should file a motion for a postponement or a continuance in which he should set out the facts constituting such surprise, and the other evidence, if any, he could produce to rebut the testimony of such additional witness if the trial of the case was continued. Where he fails to do this the error, if any, is waived.
3. Every defendant jointly indicted or informed against is charged, under the statute, 22 O.S.1951 § 839, with notice that the state may, if it so desires, use a codefendant as a witness against him and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the county attorney to endorse the name of one accused with the defendant with the commission of the offense on the information as a witness at the commencement of the trial.
Jerome Sullivan, Duncan, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert J. Nichols, County Atty., Stephens County, Duncan, for defendant in error.
The defendant, Fred Paschall, was charged by an information filed in the District Court of Stephens County with the crime of burglary in the second degree; was tried; convicted; and pursuant to the verdict of the jury was sentenced to serve two years imprisonment in the penitentiary and has appealed. We shall consider the assignments of error in the order in which they are presented in the brief of defendant.
It is first contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction in that there was no competent evidence corroborating the testimony of the accomplice.
We shall briefly summarize the evidence. Louis Tate and Johnnie Bantau, policemen of the city of Duncan, each testified that while engaged in patrolling the streets of the city sometime after midnight and in the early morning of January 23, 1951 they noticed an empty car parked near the Rock Tavern with the motor running; that the officers commenced an investigation at the tavern and noticed a torn screen at the back door; the back door was unlocked; they attempted to open it but found that some one was holding it from the inside; that they commanded the parties on the inside to come out but got no response; finally a woman known as Helen Mae Jones or Gibson emerged, but the men on the inside of the building refused to come out; that the officers entered the building and found the defendant Paschall near the end of the bar and Orvil Chisum was hiding behind the bar. Several packages of cigarettes were scattered on the floor. A juke box had been pulled away from the wall and one end of a hasp which was on the back of the machine was pulled loose. Both the defendant Paschall and the codefendant Chisum had canvas gloves. The outside door had a padlock but the hasp which held the padlock had been pried off to where the parties could enter the place; that a crowbar also was found inside the building.
Mable Stevens testified that she was in charge of the Rock Tavern on January 23, 1951 and was the person who closed the tavern immediately prior to the time that it was broken into; that she distinctly remembered placing the padlock on the west door and trying it to see if it was locked; that when she left the building the juke box was setting against the wall and the cigarettes were behind the bar; that as manager of the tavern she did not give anybody permission to enter the building after it had been closed for the night.
Grady Gossett testified that he was the owner of the Rock Tavern on January 23, 1951 and that he gave no one permission to enter the establishment after it was closed for the night; that Mable Stevens was the manager in charge of the place the night it was entered; that the building had been left open on two or three previous occasions and had been broken into about six months prior to this breaking but this was the first time he had ever seen the lock torn off; that the building had never been left open since Mrs. Stevens had been employed to operate the place.
Helen Mae Jones, sometimes known as Helen Gibson, testified that she lived in Marlow and had known the defendant Paschall and Orvil Chisum for about a year; that she went to Duncan with Chisum on the afternoon of February 22, 1951 and met the defendant Paschall at a beer joint; that about midnight they took Gene Goza to Marlow; that when they returned to Duncan they discussed breaking into the Rock Tavern; that Paschall suggested that they break into the building; that they went to Paschall's house and got two pairs of gloves and a crowbar; that Paschall said he was getting the gloves so that they would leave no fingerprints; that they went to the tavern in Chisum's car and she remained in the automobile and the engine was left running while Paschall and Chisum opened the west door to the building with the crowbar; that while she was sitting in the car she noticed the police car pass so she decided to go in the building and tell Chisum and Paschall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diaz v. State
...to follow where the defense counsel is surprised by the late endorsement of a witness. That procedure was set out in Paschall v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 198, 252 P.2d 175 (1952), in the second paragraph of the Syllabus as The trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion may permit the name ......
-
Thomas v. State
...P.2d 288, 290 (Okl.Cr.1977); Mason v. State, 560 P.2d 1048 (Okl.Cr.1977). In Diaz, we quoted the rule established in Paschall v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 198, 252 P.2d 175 (1952): The trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion may permit the name of a witness to be endorsed upon the inform......
-
Burks v. State
...himself.4 This Court has a history of providing guidelines for procedures to be followed in criminal trials. In Paschall v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 198, 252 P.2d 175 (1952), we established the procedure by which defense counsel can preserve error when surprised by the endorsement of additional wi......
-
Riggle v. State
...to follow where the defense counsel is surprised by the late endorsement of a witness. That procedure was set out in Paschall v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 198, 252 P.2d 175 (1952), in the second paragraph of the Syllabus as "The trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion may permit the name......