Phelps v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13673,A-13673 |
| Citation | 404 P.2d 687,1965 OK CR 98 |
| Parties | Edward Eugene PHELPS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Although the trial court may improperly overrule a challenge for cause to a juror, yet, if the defendant does not exhaust all his peremptory challenges, the error in overruling such challenge is harmless.
2. It is not error alone that reverses judgments of conviction of crime in this State, but error plus injury, and the burden is upon the appellant to establish the fact that he was prejudiced in his substantial rights by the commission of error.
3. Testimony voluntarily offered by officer that he offered defendant a sobriety test without stating whether the offer was accepted or refused, does not come within the rule of the court in holding it error to prove defendant had refused to take said test. Though this court does not approve of such evidence as bordering upon error, it will not be deemed error unless it appears that defendant was prejudiced thereby.
An appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County; Dwian D. Box, Judge
Edward Eugene Phelps was convicted of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robert O. Swimmer, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
James R. Fuson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Edward Eugene Phelps, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and from the judgment and sentence fixing his punishment at ten (10) days in the county jail and a fine of $25.00, he appeals.
A lengthy recitation of the facts adduced on the trial court is deemed unnecessary since the evidence, although conflicting, was ample to support the verdict of the jury, and we will refer to the record only insofar as it touches on an issue presented on appeal.
The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a juror challenged for cause. This assignment of error, although it has some merit, is deemed to have been waived for it clearly appears that the defendant failed to exhaust his peremptory challenges. A similar question was presented to this Court in Fennell v. State, Okl.Cr., 396 P.2d 889 wherein this Court speaking through Judge Johnson stated in Syllabus #4:
'Although the trial court may improperly overrule a challenge for cause to a juror, yet, if the defendant does not exhaust all his peremptory challenges, the error in overruling such challenge is harmless.'
It is next contended that the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law was denied when the arresting officers failed to afford him an opportunity to call his personal physician for the purpose of taking a blood sample which might have established that he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
In support of this contention the defendant relies on State v. Munsey, 152 Me. 198, 127 A.2d 79 (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allred v. State, 43745
...P.2d 962 (1965); Portis v. State, 195 Kan. 313, 403 P.2d 959 (1965); State v. Vogel, 45 N.J. 400, 212 A.2d 560 (1965); Phelps v. State, 404 P.2d 687 (Okl.Cr.App.1965); Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, 416 Pa. 321, 206 A.2d 283 ...
-
Black v. State
...84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (defendant could not on appeal complain of juror bias if he waived peremptory challenges below); Phelps v. State, 404 P.2d 687, 689 (Okl.Cr.1965); Boyd v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 331, 263 P.2d 202, 204-05 (1953); Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342, 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952); P......
-
Golden v. State
...five peremptory challenges after his counsel waived the fourth peremptory challenge. The Court cited the syllabus from Phelps v. State, 1965 OK CR 98, 404 P.2d 687, to It is not error alone that reverses judgments of conviction of crime in this State, but error plus injury, and the burden i......
-
McLelland v. State
...significance of preliminary hearings in the various jurisdictions. See, e.g., State v. Vogel, 212 A.2d 560 (N.J.1965); Phelps v. State, 404 P.2d 687 (Okl.Cr.App.1965); Commonwealth v. Russell, 416 Pa. 546, 207 A.2d 792, 793 (Pa.1965); and State v. Jackson, 66 Wash.2d 24, 400 P.2d 774, 778 W......