Smith v. State, F-77-584
| Decision Date | 31 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. F-77-584,F-77-584 |
| Parties | Ray Edward SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Ray Edward Smith, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Seminole County, Case No. CRF-76-44, with Uttering a Bogus Check, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1541.3 and 21 O.S.Supp.1977, § 1541.4. The case was tried to a jury and a guilty verdict was returned. Punishment was assessed at ten (10) years' imprisonment. From judgment and sentence defendant has perfected an appeal to this Court.
Inasmuch as we are reversing this case, it is only necessary to briefly recite the facts. The State's case in chief consisted of the testimony of four witnesses, as well as several documentary exhibits. Loyd Brown, Cashier of the First State Bank of Seminole, stated that on April 4, 1976, defendant opened a checking account in the bank and deposited in the account a $50.00 check payable to First State Bank, drawn upon the Security State Bank of Wewoka. Mr. Brown stated that the defendant presented a First State Bank deposit slip, State's Exhibit No. 2, filled out in the name of R. E. Smith, reflecting a $50.00 deposit. Mr. Brown further testified that in his presence defendant signed a signature card with the name of R. E. Smith, State's Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Brown further identified State's Exhibit No. 3 as a check made payable to "Ralph's" in the amount of $21.33, which was signed R. E. Smith, and which was not honored due to insufficient funds. State's Exhibit No. 3 is the subject of the instant case. Additionally, Mr. Brown identified State's Exhibit No. 4 as a check made payable to "U-Totum" in the amount of $7.89, signed R. E. Smith. It too was dishonored. Both checks were dated April 5, 1976. Mr. Brown stated that in his opinion the person who signed State's Exhibit No. 1, the signature card, also signed the checks.
Ralph Curry, manager of Ralph's I.G.A. grocery store in Seminole, testified that on April 5, 1976, the defendant presented State's Exhibit No. 3 in payment for goods. Mr. Curry stated that the defendant first presented the check to a cashier and at the cashier's request the witness "okayed" the check, although he did not examine it. Subsequently, the check was twice dishonored for insufficient funds.
Michael Paul Haskins testified that on April 5, 1976, he was a clerk for U-Totum in Seminole and that the defendant used State's Exhibit No. 4 in payment for gasoline and beer. Mr. Haskins stated that he observed the defendant sign the check.
Mrs. Roy Edward Smith testified that she lived in Seminole and that she was not related to the defendant. She further testified that she did not have an account at the First State Bank of Seminole. In court, she examined State's Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4, the checks. She stated that the address written on the checks below the signature of R. E. Smith, Route 1, Seminole, was the former mailing address of her son, Roy Edward Smith, Jr. She further testified that the telephone number written below the address, 382-2577, was her telephone number.
The defendant's only witness was Bruce Plank, a forensic document examiner with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. He stated that he personally observed defendant write defendant's exhibits numbers 3 and 4, two handwriting exemplars. Further, he testified that he obtained nine other known examples of the defendant's handwriting. After examining these,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State, s. F-81-797
...of a probability that the newly discovered evidence, if presented at trial, would have changed the jury's verdict. See Smith v. State, 590 P.2d 687, 689 (Okl.Cr.1979). See also Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080 (Okl.Cr.1984). Appellants have failed to meet this In both the affidavit and at th......
-
Maxwell v. State, F-84-425
...be a reasonable possibility that had the evidence been introduced at the trial, the result would have been different. Smith v. State, 590 P.2d 687, 689 (Okl.Cr.1979). After reviewing the evidence in its entirety, we are convinced that the result would have been the same. This proposition is......
-
Johnston v. State, F-83-152
...on that date. However, we think the evidence would be merely cumulative and would not change the result at trial. Smith v. State, 590 P.2d 687 (Okl.Cr.1979). We do not find an abuse of the trial court's discretion which would justify reversal. Thompson v. State, 541 P.2d 1328 As appellant's......