Pressley v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1941
• Docket Number: A-9774.
• Parties: PRESSLEY et al. v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

112 P.2d 809

71 Okla.Crim. 436

PRESSLEY et al. v. STATE.

No. A-9774.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 16, 1941

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the competency of a confession is challenged on the ground that, if made, it was not voluntary, its admissibility is primarily a question for the court. In the absence of the jury, the court should hear the evidence offered respecting the facts and circumstances attending such alleged confession, and the burden is on the defendant to show that it was procured by such means or under such circumstances as to render it inadmissible, unless the evidence on the part of the state tends to show that fact. If it is held competent and proof of the same admissible, the defendant is entitled to have the evidence in regard to the facts and circumstances under which it was made given anew to the jury, not that the jury may pass upon its competency or admissibility, but for the purpose of enabling them to judge what weight and value should be given to it as evidence, and the jury may disregard it if they are not satisfied that it was voluntarily made.

2. Where a defendant testifies in a hearing on the competency of a confession that he signed the confession because of threats of harm and blows which were struck him by an officer having him in custody, and the officer alleged to have committed the abuse is present in court and does not testify, and there is no testimony to refute the statements of the defendant, the alleged confession is inadmissible as a matter of law.

3. The character of the defendant cannot be impeached or attacked by the state unless he puts his character in issue by introducing evidence of good character.

4. Evidence of offenses other than the one charged is admissible only when it tends to prove the offense charged. To be competent, it must have some logical connection with the offense charged.

5. Conduct of prosecuting attorney, in persisting in cross-examining the accused and witnesses for the accused by assumptions and insinuations as to previous unlawful acts and transactions, in spite of rulings against him, held improper and prejudicial.

6. It is improper to ask a witness if he has ever been indicted arrested or imprisoned, before conviction, for any offense whatever.

7. Where the defendants are cross-examined as to other crimes alleged to have been committed by them, which have no connection with the offense charged, upon which alleged offenses convictions have not been obtained, and the defendants deny the commission of the alleged offenses, it is error to permit the state to introduce witnesses in rebuttal with the view of impeaching the testimony of the defendants by showing the commission of the alleged crimes, as a witness cannot be impeached upon collateral matters.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.

George Pressley and James T. D. Williams were convicted of robbery and they appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Mathers & Mathers and Judd Black, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Jess L. Pullen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES Judge.

The defendants, George Pressley and James T. D. Williams, were convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County of the offense of robbery. The punishment was left to the court, who thereupon sentenced each of the two defendants to serve a term of five years in the State Reformatory; and they have appealed to this court.

The defendants have filed a lengthy brief in which they present thirty-two assignments of error.

After a review of the record, it is evident that most of the assignments of error are wholly without substantial merit.

Among the contentions of the defendants, we find only three of sufficient importance which, when considered together, require a reversal of this case:

1. The alleged confessions of the defendants were inadmissible as a matter of law.

2. Admission of evidence of other crimes having no connection with the offense charged.

3. The misconduct of the county attorney in asking improper questions and making ex parte statements in the presence of the jury, inferring guilt of other crimes to the defendants, was so flagrant that the defendants did not receive a fair and impartial trial.

In order to properly discuss these questions, a short summary of the evidence is presented.

In the state's case in chief, three witnesses were presented: Betty Harbolt, aged twelve; Lizzie Harbolt, her grandmother; and John Butler, a police officer.

Betty Harbolt testified she lived with her grandmother in Oklahoma City. That W. W. Harbolt, the police officer, is her uncle. That on January 7, 1939, about 7:30 P. M., she and her grandmother were walking along in the 1400 block on West Third Street; two boys, a tall boy and a short boy, walked up and one of them asked what hundred block that was. "I told them it was the 1400 block." One of the boys then grabbed her grandmother's purse, which witness was carrying. Witness tried to hang onto the purse, and was knocked down. They jerked the purse away from her and ran. She identified the defendant, Pressley, as being the person who snatched her purse; and further testified that the Pressley boy lived in the next block to her, but that she had never seen him before.

On cross-examination the witness denied making statements to various parties, in which she said that it was so dark that she was unable to identify either of the boys who assaulted her.

Lizzie Harbolt testified that she and her granddaughter had been to Chapman's Grocery Store to get some groceries, and were returning home. That she had $5.50 in her purse, which the granddaughter was carrying. That when they got down close to Mrs. Boone's store, two boys stepped out from behind a tree and grabbed the purse that Betty had. That Betty wrestled with them until she fell to her knees. The taller boy hit her twice; and then they got the purse and ran to the alley back of Boone's store, and went west. That this happened at night, but it was light enough that she could see their faces. She identifies the two defendants as the two boys who committed the assault.

On cross-examination she testified that Wayne Harbolt, a police officer, is her son and that he arrested these boys. That about three days after the boys were arrested, she came down to the city jail and identified them. That one of the boys was taller than the other. She further testified:

"Q. Didn't you say there at the Boone store that it was so dark that you couldn't identify either one of them? A. I don't know what I said in there.

Q. You were so badly scared you don't know what conversation you had with Mrs. Boone? A. I don't know what I said in there, because I was scared and nervous."

She stated that she left the Boone store and went to Chapman's store in the next block.

"Q. Didn't you tell all of them that it would be impossible for you to identify either one of these boys right then and there? A. I just couldn't tell you what I told them.

Q. You were so badly frightened you could not tell what you said? A. I went back and told Mrs. Chapman the other day that I was ashamed of myself the way I done."

John Butler testified that he is a police officer of Oklahoma City, and has been for nine years. That in January, 1939, he was attached to the Detective Division and worked with W. W. Harbolt. He and Harbolt arrested the defendants in their home on this charge on January 27th, and took them to the police station. The witness then identifies two exhibits offered by the state, which were alleged confessions of the defendants. Upon proper objection being made by the defendants, the jury was excluded from the court room and testimony taken upon the question of the admissibility of the confessions. Butler testified that he was present when the defendants each signed the respective statements bearing their signatures. That no threats were made or promises given to induce them to sign the statement, but that they were voluntarily signed. He admitted that the boys were taken separately into the "consultation room," where the alleged offense was discussed with them, but denies that the defendants were either assaulted or whipped or threatened in any way to his knowledge. He further testified that the boys were kept in jail for four days without permitting their folks or an attorney to talk to them, until on the fourth day a writ of habeas corpus was procured from District Judge Giddings, at which time the charges of robbery were filed against the defendants.

He further testified:

"Q. Were you in there at the time Mr. Harbolt was talking to Pressley? A. Part of the time, yes, sir."

As to the defendant, Williams, he testified: "I wouldn't say that I was or I was not there when he was brought out of the cell to be brought to the 'consultation room,' or whatever you want to call that office of ours; but I was there just before he sat down and gave his statement to the clerk, Jack Mackey."

George Pressley, one of the defendants, testified that he had signed the statement to keep Harbolt from killing him. That Harbolt took him into a room by himself, said that a purse had been stolen from his mother, and stated: "You did it." "I told him I didn't do it, and Harbolt hit me on the chin and knocked me down, and made me stand up and then slapped me back down, and said: 'You see that blood down on the wall by the chair? That is what we do to them. I am going to stomp your God damned guts out right here on the floor. You snatched my mother's purse."' That he was in a room without any windows, and that there was blood on the wall. That Butler was not in the room. That he was knocked down by the officer three times before he told the officer...