Sandersfield v. State
| Citation | 461 P.2d 1019 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. A--14637,A--14637 |
| Parties | Patricia Ann SANDERSFIELD, 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 |
Plaintiff in error, Patricia Ann Sandersfield hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County with the crime of Assault Upon a Police Officer. She was tried by a jury, found guilty, and her punishment assessed at 30 days in the county jail, and a fine of $200.00. From that judgment and sentence she has appealed to this Court.
From the record, it appears that the defendant was being booked into the Oklahoma City Jail when she grabbed a police matron by the hair and refused to let go, until several male officers forced her to release her hold.
This Court need not go into the sufficiency of the evidence, as AGAIN, this conviction has been nullified, and the State of Oklahoma put to the unnecessary expense of another trial by the unsolicited, prejudicial statement of an experienced police officer--in this instance, Oklahoma City Police Officer Jerry Charles Pendry.
This Court has repeatedly and consistently condemned and chastised the practice of an experienced police officer injecting an 'evidentiary harpoon' into a trial--which could have otherwise been affirmed--and requiring this Court to waste its time in reviewing such a case, and the State of Oklahoma in having to try the case again.
At page 26 of the casemade, the assistant district attorney was examining Officer Pendry, as follows:
'Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury at this time, What, if anything occurred there on the third floor in regard to the defendant, What you observed while she was there.
A. Well, the arresting officers brought the defendant in, they had her handcuffed. She had been placed under arrest I think for a murder charge . . .
Officer Pendry had been asked What occurred and What he observed. Any beginning patrolman knows better that to inject even a hint of a Murder charge into a case, particularly a misdemeanor case. For a so-called 'veteran' officer to do this can only be deliberate and calculated for the purpose of prejudicing the jury.
In Kutin v. State, Okl.Cr. 430 P.2d 848, wherein another Oklahoma City Police Officer, B. C. LeMay, was guilty of the same tactics, Judge Bussey stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hooks
...Bruner v. State, 612 P.2d 1375, 1378 (Okl.Crim.1980); Mathis v. State, 553 P.2d 525, 528 (Okl.Crim.1976); Sandersfield v. State, 461 P.2d 1019, 1020 (Okl.Crim.1969); State v. Suleski, 67 Wash.2d 45, 406 P.2d 613, 617 (1965) (en banc). Without borrowing the lexicon of these state courts, we ......
-
Washington v. State
...Tucker v. State, 499 P.2d 458, 461 (Okl.Cr.1972). See also Pickens v. State, 850 P.2d 328, 344 (Okl.Cr.1993); Sandersfield v. State 461 P.2d 1019, 1020 (Okl.Cr.1969). Such is the case here. The issue of guilt is undisputed by the evidence. The issue of proof of the aggravating circumstance ......
-
Abram v. State
...into evidence which results in reversals of convictions and defeats the ends of justice. (Citations omitted.) Sandersfield v. State, 461 P.2d 1019, 1020 (Okl.Cr.1969). Although the trial judge recognized that evidence of appellant's character was simply not appropriate in the state's case i......
-
Maxville v. State
...concerning the accused's prior arrest, prior crimes or prior charges. See Mathis v. State, 553 P.2d 525 (Okl.Cr.1976); Sandersfield v. State, 461 P.2d 1019 (Okl.Cr.1969); and Kutin v. State, 430 P.2d 848 (Okl.Cr.1967). Assuming, however, that the statement was error, we cannot find as a mat......