Pearson v. State

• Decision Date: 23 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. F--75--430,F--75--430
• Citation: 556 P.2d 1025
• Parties: Jack O. PEARSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1025

556 P.2d 1025

Jack O. PEARSON, Appellant, v.The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F--75--430.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 23, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1976.

An appeal from the District Court, Oklahoma County; Carmon C. Harris, judge.

Jack O. Pearson, appellant, was convicted for the offense of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the First Degree; was sentenced to Five Hundred Dollar ($500.00) fine, which was suspended and a term of two (2) years in the State Penitentiary, and he appeals.Judgment and sentence AFFIRMED.

Peter K. Schaffer, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Michael Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joe Mark Elkouri, Legal Intern, for appellee.

ORDER WITHDRAWING OPINION DELIVERED FEBRUARY5, 1975 AND

SUBSTITUTING ATTACHED OPINION THEREFOR

NOW, on this 23rd day of November, 1976, the Court, after considering the Petition for Rehearing and briefs in support thereof, filed in the above styled and numbered cause, finds that the Opinion delivered by this Court on the 5th day of February, 1975, should be WITHDRAWN and the attached Opinion substituted therefor.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Opinion delivered by this Court on the 5th day of February, 1975, be WITHDRAWN, and the attached Opinion be substituted therefor.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 23rd day of November, 1976.

TOM BRETT, P.J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

C. F. BLISS, JR., J.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

Appellant, Jack O. Pearson, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged, tried and convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County, for the offense of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 421, Case No. CRF--74--2921.On the information, George Kriz and Linda Pearson were also named as co-conspirators.However, George Kriz was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony, and the charge against Linda Pearson was dismissed prior to trial.As a result, the defendant was the sole conspirator tried and convicted.He was sentenced to a Five Hundred Dollar fine ($500.00), which was suspended, and a term of two (2) years in the State Penitentiary.From this judgment and sentence, the defendant has perfected a timely appeal to this Court.

The State called as its first witness Mr. George Kriz.Mr. Kriz testified that on August 12, 1974, an individual whom he identified as the defendant came to his house and introduced himself.Mr. Kriz had not met the defendant prior to that time.The defendant then told Mr. Kriz that he'needed a job done.'He inquired if he knew anyone who would do it.Mr. Kriz replied that he knew a 'thief who would steal just about anything.'The defendant then left, but returned the next day to see if Mr. Kriz had contacted anyone.Mr. Kriz said no but the defendant'might go down . . . and talk to Don.'¹Mr. Kriz and the defendant then proceeded to go to Don's house, where Mr. Kriz introduced the defendant to Don Woodyard, but did not listen to any conversation between the two.

Two weeks later, the defendant again visited Mr. Kriz, complaining that Don 'hadn't done anything he asked him to do.'Mr. Kriz then testified in the following manner:

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.Did he tell you what he asked him to do at that time?

'MR. KRIZ:

'A.No.

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.Okay.Did he ever tell you why he got in contact with you?

'MR. KRIZ:

'A.Well he told me he had a job to do, was all.'(Tr. 18)

On August 29, 1974, Mr. Kriz was arrested by the Midwest City Police.He was taken to the station, where he spoke by telephone with the defendant.In that conversation he arranged the meeting between the defendant and 'Rocco', who in reality was Lieutenant Jack Hill of the Midwest City Police.Shortly thereafter, the defendant met with Lieutenant Hill and Mr. Kriz.After a brief conversation between the defendant and Lieutenant Hill, the defendant was arrested.Mr. Kriz testified that he did not hear the conversation between the defendant and Lieutenant Hill.Furthermore, he testified that he was granted immunity for his testimony.

On cross-examination, Mr. Kriz testified that he never at any time intended to commit a felony.

The State's second witness was Mr. Don Woodyard.Mr. Woodyard testified that on August 13, 1974, Mr. George Kriz brought the defendant over to his home, and introduced him.Mr. Woodyard then testified in the following manner:

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.After you were introduced to Mr. Pearson, did you have any conversation with him?

'MR. WOODYARD:

'A.Yes.

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.What was the nature of that conversation?What did he say to you and what did you say to him?

'MR. WOODYARD:

'A.Well, he told me he wanted a job done.

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.Did he tell you what that job was?

'MR. WOODYARD:

'A.Yes.

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.What did he say it was?

'MR. WOODYARD:

'A.That he wanted somebody bumped off.

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.Did you ask him what he meant by that?

'MR. WOODYARD:

'A.Yes.

'MR. MILDFELT:

'Q.What did he say to you?

'MR. WOODYARD:

'A.He said he wanted them killed.'(Tr. 27)

The witness then went on to identify the intended victims as Mr. and Mrs. Harry Buck, who were the mother-in-law and stepfather-in-law of the defendant.During his conversation with the defendant, Mr. Woodyard received $50.00 from the defendant as a down payment for the 'contract.'When asked where the defendant got the money Mr. Woodyard testified that the defendant walked back to his car, where his wife was sitting, and returned with $50.00.Mr. Woodyard then told the defendanthe would get in touch with 'Rocco and Stretch' to get the job done.Further testimony revealed however, that Mr. Woodyard did not know the whereabouts of either Rocco or Stretch, and never made any attempt at contacting them.

Asked whether he had seen the defendant on any other subsequent dates, Mr. Woodyard testified that he saw him on several other occasions.It was during one of those subsequent meetings that the defendant supplied Mr. Woodyard with names and addresses of the intended victims, including car tag numbers and work habits.Mr. Woodyard further testified that on each of these occasions, the defendant's wife was with him, and although she never engaged in any of the conversation, often times she was within hearing distance of the defendant's and Mr. Woodyard's conversations.

On the day of the final meeting between the defendant and Mr. Woodyard, the defendant was angry at Mr. Woodyard for his failure to contact the hit men, Rocco and Stretch.An altercation arose between the parties resulting in Mr. Woodyard telling the defendant to get out of his yard.The defendant left, and the police were called shortly thereafter.

Mr. Woodyard then went to the Midwest City Police Station, where he made a statement and attempted to arrange a meeting by telephone between the defendant and Lieutenant Hill, who identified himself as the hit man, Rocco.The conversation between Mr. Woodyard and the defendant was recorded by the police, with Mr. Woodyard's consent, and subsequently admitted into evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses.²The attempted meeting, however, did not take place as a result of this conversation.

On cross-examination, Mr. Woodyard testified that he never intended to contact Rocco and Stretch, that he in fact did not know their whereabouts, and that he never intended to murder anyone.

The State's third witness was Lieutenant Jack Hill of the Midwest City Police Department.Lieutenant Hill testified that on August 28, 1974, Mr. Woodyard came to the police station and gave a statement relating the events of the recent days.A call was then placed to the defendant, and an attempt was made to arrange a meeting between the defendant and Lieutenant Hill, who identified himself as Rocco.This attempt failed, and further attempts were made on subsequent nights.During one of these conversations with the defendant, Lieutenant Hill testified that the defendant became apprehensive and said 'hold on for just a minute.My wife is talking to me.'(Tr. 49).

Finally, a meeting was arranged between the defendant and Lieutenant Hill posing as Rocco.At that meeting the defendant gave Lieutenant Hill a $20.00 bill, and was subsequently arrested.

Lieutenant Hill further testified that all of these conversations between Mr. Woodyard, George Kriz, the defendant, and himself, were recorded on tapes.The prosecution them moved to introduce all of these tapes into evidence over the defendant's objection.A conference was held outside the presence of the jury, and the trial judge admitted only one of the several tapes sought to be introduced.The jury then heard a taped conversation between the defendant, Mr. Woodyard, the defendant's wife, Linda Pearson, and Lieutenant Hill.The contents of this taped conversation corroborated the testimony of Lieutenant Hill and Don Woodyard.

The State's next two witnesses were Harry and Ann Buck, who were the intended victims.Their testimony essentially provided the background leading up to these events.It was established that there were bitter feelings between the defendant and his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. Buck, as a result of civil proceedings involving the custody of Linda Pearson's children from a prior marriage.Mrs. Buck said that she testified against her daughter in those proceedings.Mr. Buck's testimony verified the car tag numbers given to Mr. Woodyard by the defendant, which corresponded to the car tag numbers of the automobiles he owned.

The State also called Ella Reale as a witness.She testified she was a private investigator, who followed the defendant and his wife to 1217 Ferguson, in Midwest City, on August 13, 1974.She then followed them to 516 Shortway, then to 421 Bowman, then back to their home, where the defendant and his wife changed cars and returned to 516 Shortway.³

The State then rested.The defense also rested at this time without calling any witnesses.

We are...