Ryans v. State

• Decision Date: 16 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. A--13996,A--13996
• Parties: Billy Ray RYANS, 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

Page 556

420 P.2d 556

Billy Ray RYANS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A--13996.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 16, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The general criminal intent of crimes is presumed from the criminal act itself.

2. A defendant charged with a crime which has as one of its ingredients an unlawful intent may explain his intent and mental purpose, and may deny the specific intent required to constitute the offense.

3. Intent as an essential element of an offense is a question for the jury to be determined from what the accused does and says, and all the facts and circumstances of each case.

4. Instructions of the court should be applicable to evidence and all proper deduction and interpretation thereof, and not to questions not presented or covered by the evidence.

5. Before the Court of Criminal Appeals will interfere with verdict of jury on ground that evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction, there must be no competent evidence in the record upon which the verdict could be based.

Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.

Billy Ray Ryans was convicted of the crime of burglary, after former conviction of felony, and appeals. Affirmed.

Velmer J. Dimery, Norman, for plaintiff in error.

Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Charles L. Owens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant as he appeared in the trial court, was charged, and convicted by a jury, in the district court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The information alleged the crime of second degree burglary.

In substance, it is alleged that on or about June 19, 1965 the defendant and three other persons did burglariously and feloniously, in the nighttime, break and enter a certain business establishment in Norman, Oklahoma, by breaking open the outer door of the building and entering, without consent of the owner, and with the felonious and burglarious intent to steal therein.

The trial resulted in the jury finding the defendant guilty of the second degree burglary charge; and, after presentation of the second section of the information, the jury found the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree, after former conviction of a felony. The jury then fixed defendant's punishment at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of seven years.

Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and judgment and sentence was duly rendered. Thereafter, defendant perfected his appeal to this Court by petition in error with casemade, on May 9, 1966.

Defendant was represented at his arraignment in district court by his attorney, Mr. E. E. Zamrzle, who was later permitted to withdraw from defendant's case. Defendant employed Mr. H. A. Leatherman to represent him. Mr. Leatherman filed and presented a demurrer to the information, after which he was allowed to withdraw as defense counsel. The Court then appointed Mr. S. Edward Wagner to represent the defendant. Mr. Wagner represented the defendant at his trial; filed and presented his motion for new trial, and filed defendant's notice of intention to appeal, after which the court permitted him to withdraw as counsel. April 12, 1966 the court appointed Mr. Velmer J. Dimery to represent the defendant on his appeal.

The State sufficiently established the facts that the Norman Builder's Supply, a retail lumber establishment, maintained a burglary alarm system, which, after it was properly set, became activated when the door was opened; that the door to the office had been forced sufficiently to indicate it had been broken into; that the door facing had marks on it which were made by some prying instrument; that money and valuable property were kept in the office, and in the enclosed lumber yard; and that the defendant had not been given authority to be on, or to enter the premises.

Mr. Joe Poe testified that the alarm system, which he was employed to maintain by the Merchant's Security Service, was activated at 12:52 a.m. on June 19, when he summoned the police.

Two Norman police officers were in the vicinity of the lumber yard and arrived there within a few minutes after the police were summoned, and commenced to search the lumber yard. While they were searching, one of the boys, Paul David Allen, came up to them and stated that he was the only person there. During the same period of time, two more officers arrived at the scene and discovered three other men hiding. All four men, including this defendant, were arrested and were taken to the police station. Thereafter the charges were filed against them.

Two pry-bars, or 'crow-bars' were introduced into evidence, and identified as having been found by the police near the...