Roberson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--14076,A--14076 |
| Citation | 456 P.2d 595 |
| Parties | Jackie Eugene ROBERSON, 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. It is a felony for one involved in an automobile accident where personal injury results, to leave the scene of the accident without giving information relative thereto, as required by the statute. 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 10--102(b).
2. Peace officers have a right to arrest without a warrant all persons who are guilty of a violation of the criminal law in their presence; and, as an incident to such legal arrest, the person of such offender may, without a warrant, be searched for contraband goods.
3. Where a person is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found upon his person or in his control, which may be used to prove the offense, may be seized and held for evidence in the prosecution.
4. Where there is ample basis in record to support denial of motion to suppress evidence seized, reviewing court is bound by such ruling.
5. The Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse a trial court upon findings of fact in connection with motion to suppress evidence, where there is competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the findings of the court.
6. In determining whether one accused of crime is incompetent to stand trial, the test is whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree in relational understanding and whether he has rational as well as actual understanding of the proceedings against him.
7. It is the duty of defendant to question jurors on their voir dire as to their qualifications, and if he fails to do so, he waives any objection on that point, even though disqualification is unknown to him until after rendition of verdict.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Robert D. Simms, Judge.
Jackie Eugene Roberson was convicted of the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, and appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas H. May, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Dale F. Crowder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by Jackie Eugene Roberson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, from a conviction in the district court of Tulsa County, on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, after former conviction of a felony. Defendant was tried to a jury, found guilty, and his punishment fixed at 50 years in the state penitentiary.
Defendant's motion for a new trial sets out 13 errors. He lists 14 errors in his petition in error, which are argued under three propositions in his brief.
The facts briefly stated are: the defendant was involved in an automobile accident in the city of Tulsa, on March 14, 1966 at the intersection of 46th Street North, and Cincinnati Avenue. As the result of the accident, three criminal charges were filed against him and reached the district court.
Defendant was charged as follows: Case No. 21913, assault with a deadly weapon; case No. 21914, carrying a firearm; and case No. 21915, possession of burglary tools, each charge alleging further, 'after former conviction of felony'. Subsequently, the charge of possession of burglary tools was dismissed.
On the day of the accident, C. H. Rawlinson, an off-duty Tulsa police officer, was at a laundry he owned and operated near the intersection where the accident occurred. He walked to the scene of the accident to render any aid possible, and discovered that two automobiles were involved; and that the injured persons had been taken into a nearby Gulf Oil Company service station until the ambulance arrived.
Officer Rawlinson observed the defendant's car resting up on the curb, and that the defendant was sitting in it. He testified that the defendant started and raced his motor, in an effort to move it; that he went over and told the defendant not to leave the scene of the accident. About that time, Deputy Sheriff Jerry Quinton, a plain-clothes officer, arrived. A few minutes later the defendant got out of his car, walked across the street towards a Skelly Service Station, located at the same intersection, and as he did so he appeared to be holding something under his belt. Officer Rawlinson and Deputy Quinton followed him across the street, and as Rawlinson entered the station, the defendant approached the rest-room door. As the defendant was about to to enter the restroom, Deputy Quinton identified himself to the defendant, and advised him that he would have to accompany him inside the rest-room. The defendant replied that no one was going in the rest-room with him; and attempted to close the door, but the deputy prevented it by placing his foot in the way. Officer Rawlinson and Deputy Quinton then proceeded to shove the door open, with Rawlinson entering the restroom first. As he went inside, Rawlinson reached for the defendant's right hand, and in doing so grasped a pistol, which the defendant was holding, and which was pointed at Rawlinson's stomach. About that instant the pistol hammer snapped, but caught Rawlinson's right fore-finger which prevented the gun from firing. After a brief struggle, the pistol was taken from the defendant, and he was placed in hand-cuffs.
When the Tulsa Police arrived, the defendant was turned to their custody, and the pistol was given to Sergeant King, of the Tulsa Police Traffic Division. Sergeant King testified that he removed the ammunition clip from the pistol, which contained four rounds, and one shell from the chamber of the pistol. This pistol and ammunition were introduced into evidence and identified by the witness, as being a German-made P--38 pistol.
Deputy Sheriff Quinton corroborated the story told by officer Rawlinson, and testified that he identified himself to the defendant when the defendant was just inside the rest-room, when the defendant turned to face him, and while the door was still open about 18 inches.
Defendant's first contention of error is that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence a certain P--38 automatic pistol and certain testimony concerning the same, over the objections of the defendant, when it was clearly shown that said pistol and said evidence were obtained through an illegal arrest and search of the defendant.
A motion to suppress the evidence was introduced at the preliminary hearing in the Court of Common Pleas, and was overruled. In the District Court, at defendant's trial, a 'motion to suppress' was filed with particular reference to the P--38 automatic pistol; and attached to the motion was a transcript of testimony taken at the preliminary hearing. The motion was sustained as to case No. 21915 (), but was denied as to the other two charges. The State elected to proceed to trial in case No. 21913 in which defendant was charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, after former conviction of felony. The trial commenced on June 6, 1966.
After carefully reviewing the record before the Court, we are of the opinion that defendant's first contention of error is without merit.
Title 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 10--102, provides:
'(b) Any person wilfully, maliciously, or feloniously failing to stop, or to comply with said requirements under such circumstances Shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.' (Emphasis added)
And Title 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 196, provides:
* * *'
There is no dispute whatsoever that this defendant was involved in an automobile accident as alleged; and that some of the persons involved in the accident were taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Likewise, it is sufficiently shown that the defendant conducted himself in such manner as to cause the off-duty policeman, C. H. Rawlinson, and Deputy Sheriff Jerry Quinton to have sufficient cause to believe the defendant was attempting to commit a felony, to-wit: to leave the scene of an accident involving personal injury. This cause resulted when defendant started and reced his automobile motor and attempted to move it, after which he got out of his automobile and walked across the street, away from the location where the other persons involved in the accident were assembled. Therefore, we must conclude that the officers were justified in following and arresting the defendant.
Having determined that the arrest was justified, the seizure of the P--38 automatic pistol was also justified, and the trial court did not err in admitting the pistol into evidence. In the early case of Yeager v. State, 43 Okl.Cr. 318, 278 P. 665, this Court said:
'Where a person is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found upon his person or in his control, which may be used to prove the offense, may be seized and held for evidence in the prosecution.'
This case has been quoted with approval in Love v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 7, 292 P. 882; Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 426 P.2d 377, and other cases.
This Court will not reverse a trial court upon findings of fact in connection with a motion to suppress the evidence where there is competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the findings of the trial court. It follows therefore, that the motion to suppress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cary by and through Cary v. Oneok, Inc.
...A Matter of Discretion or Constitutional Right?, 38 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 387 (1987/88).35 22 O.S.1991 § 1175.1. See Roberson v. State, Okl.Cr., 456 P.2d 595, 600 (1968), which teaches that a criminal defendant's claim of incapacity calls for a pretrial jury inquest.36 Florida Greyhound Lines v......
-
Lopez v. State
...185 (7th Cir. 1958); State v. Gaitan, Mo., 442 S.W.2d 530 (1969); State v. Grillo, 16 N.J. 103, 106 A.2d 294 (1954); Roberson v. State, Okl.Cr., 456 P.2d 595, 600 (1968). The court in State v. Grillo, supra, at p. 299, approved as apt what had been said by the trial judge at the time of rul......
-
People v. Foster
...422 So.2d 809 [Ala.Cr.App.]; Ford v. United States, 5th Cir., 201 F.2d 300), service by a prescribed public officer (Roberson v. State, 456 P.2d 595 [Okl.Cr.App.] ) and even the current deficiency--prior jury service within the prescribed statutory period (State v. Hayes, 67 S.E.2d 9,supra ......
-
State v. Percy, 88-438
...and then to seasonably raise that objection with respect to any member of the panel." Id. at 861; see also Roberson v. State, 456 P.2d 595, 600 (Okla.Crim.App.1967). Well before using a peremptory challenge to dismiss the potential juror, the defendant was made aware of the juror's view of ......