Randleman v. State, F--75--778
| Decision Date | 02 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. F--75--778,F--75--778 |
| Parties | Melvin Sherman RANDLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Melvin Sherman Randleman, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF--75--226, for the offense of Robbery with Firearms in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 801. His punishment was fixed at a term of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and from this judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The State's first witness at trial was Annis Wilson who testified she was employed at a 7--11 Store located at 3113 South Pennsylvania in Oklahoma City, and was so employed on the 28th of December, 1974, when at approximately 6:50 P.M., while talking on the telephone she observed an individual with a rifle walking down the sidewalk. She related this observation to her telephone party whereafter the individual entered the store and upon asking the individual if he was serious, the individual said . . . 'dead serious, hang-up, I want your money.' She complied with the individual's request for fear of her life and thus she put approximately $100.00 contained by the store's two (2) cash registers into a paper bag and gave it to the individual. During this time she observed a vehicle arrive in front of the 7--11 whereafter the individual left. She identified the defendant in court as the individual who robbed the store on the 28th of December, 1974. She also testified that she had occasion to view a line-up at the Oklahoma City Police Station some three (3) weeks following the robbery at which time from the individuals in the line-up she identified the defendant as the one who had robbed the 7--11 Store on December 28th. On cross-examination she testified that at the time of the robbery the defendant was wearing blue denim trousers and a knee length all-weather coat. She also stated that at the time of the robbery, the defendant appeared to be 5 3 or 5 4 and approximately 130 pounds and that he had long hair. She stated she gave this description to the police upon their arrival some twenty (20) minutes after the robbery.
Aaron L. Cummings testified that on the 28th of December, 1974, at approximately 6:50 P.M., he and his wife, Barbara Cummings, while proceeding to visit his wife's father in Moore, Oklahoma, stopped at a 7--11 Store located at 3113 South Pennsylvania. Upon stopping and proceeding to enter the store he observed the woman inside the store talking on the telephone and an individual with a rifle sticking out from beneath a coat walking down the sidewalk. He proceeded back to his car whereafter he later saw the same individual hold the lady at rifle point inside the store. He then proceeded to a nearby laundromat to call the police whereafter he then observed the individual again walking towards them. He identified in court, the defendant as the individual he had observed upon that evening. He also stated the defendant that evening carried a brown paper bag and that upon the defendant approaching him, the defendant apparently began pulling the rifle out from beneath his coat at which time he and his wife proceeded down the street to try and get away from the defendant. He also testified that the only subsequent contact with the defendant was at a line-up at the police station a few weeks after the robbery.
Claude Shubert testified he was employed with the Oklahoma City Police Department, assigned to the Robbery-Homicide Division, and that he participated in the investigation of the December 28th robbery of the 7--11 Store located at 3113 South Pennsylvania. He testified that as a result of that investigation he contacted Miss Wilson on or about the 16th day of January, 1975, and carried with him a group of mug shots. He also took the same group of photographs to the Cummings and pursuant to these contacts he issued a pick-up for the defendant. The State then rested.
Defendant took the stand to testify in his own behalf and categorically denied committing the robbery and proceeded to disclose a defense of alibi. He stated that on the night of the robbery he was engaged in a game of Yahtzee at his fiance's home, Jean Jones. He testified that on that day he had met his fiance at her employment at 10th and North Walnut and followed her to her home at approximately the time of the alleged robbery. He stated that while at the home of his fiance he received a telephone call from one Carol Ashly who was his fiance's sister. He testified that the various phone calls and the time of the trip to his fiance's home made it impossible for him to be on the South side of Oklahoma City at the time the robbery was committed.
Jean Jones, the defendant's fiance, Brenda Johnson, the young daughter of Mrs. Jones, and Carol Ashly were all called as defense witnesses and essentially corroborated the testimony of the defendant.
Orvil William Cates testified that he was a friend and acquaintance of the defendant and that he was arrested for the same crime along with the defendant but that he was subsequently released by the police. Ruth Odom testified that she was the Court Reporter at the preliminary hearing in the instant case and stated Miss Annis Wilson had testified on cross-examination at the preliminary hearing as follows:
'Q. Would you read the portions of the--or, did you read the portions I have requested you to read.
A. Question: 'If he were somewhere else, could you possibly be mistaken?' The District Attorney raised an objection, the Judge sustained the objection.
Next Question: 'Is there any possibility you could be mistaken?'
Answer: 'There is always a possibility someone is wrong.'
Such testimony was in conflict with that given by Miss Wilson during Direct Examination by the State. However, she further states the record of the preliminary hearing further reflects, the prior two (2) questions thereto were as follows:
THE WITNESS: Question: 'Ma'am, are you sure this is the man that robbed yu?'
Answer: 'I wouldn't have said so if not.'
The defense then rested.
The defendant's first assignment of error principally attacks the in-court identifications of the defendant by State's Witness Wilson and State's Witness Cummings. The defendant alleges the extrajudicial identification of the defendant by Witness Wilson and Witness Cummings in a photographic exhibition conducted by Officer Shubert and in a subsequent police station line-up, rendered the in-court identifications of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Aldridge
...trial court denied the motion. In doing so, it expressly rejected the allegation jurors slept during trial:In Randleman v. State , 552 P.2d 90 (Ok. Cr. 1976), the Court stated, "The trial court should make his observations of the trial (i.e. jurors who might have fallen asleep) a part of th......
-
Spunaugle v. State
...a juror who slept during parts of the trial. This motion was timely made, and thus the objection is fully perfected. Randleman v. State, 552 P.2d 90, 93 (Okl.Cr.1976). Juror misconduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and in this case was. See Wofford v. State, 494 P.2d 672,......
-
State v. Bolen
...United States v. Krohn, 560 F.2d 293, 297 (7th Cir.1977); Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1067, 1067-68 (Ind.1987); Randleman v. State, 552 P.2d 90, 93-94 (Okla.Crim. App.1976); see generally cases collected in George L. Blum, Annotation, Inattention Juror from Sleepiness or Other Cause as Gro......
-
Blevins v. State, F-78-538
...to go unnoticed, thereby sewing a defect into the trial, and later claim its benefit." 471 F.2d at 422. See also Randleman v. State, Okl.Cr., 552 P.2d 90 (1976) and United States v. Carter, 433 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. The defendant urges in the third assignment of error that a police witness in......