Spicer v. State, A--16880

• Decision Date: 10 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. A--16880,A--16880
• Citation: 490 P.2d 1113
• Parties: Ervin Ernest SPICER, III, 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 1113

490 P.2d 1113

Ervin Ernest SPICER, III, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A--16880.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 10, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the provisions of 20 O.S.Supp.1969, § 106.4(a), it is the duty of the trial court to require the court reporter to record and transcribe all of the proceedings had in the trial, and the criminal case. The court reporter is requested to do so by the party in interest or his attorney, and the failure of the court to do so is made prejudicial error unless the whole Record discloses the facts sufficient to enable the court to determine the merits of the proposition counsel was endeavoring to save.

An appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Byron E. McFall, Judge.

Ervin Ernest Spicer, III was convicted for the crime of Possession of Stimulants. His punishment was fixed at one (1) year in the county jail, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Don Anderson, Public Defender, Oklahoma County, for plaintiff in error.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Ray Naifeh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Ervin Ernest Spicer, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma for the offense of Possession of Stimulants. His punishment was fixed at one (1) year in the county jail, and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Because of the proposition asserted, we do not deem it necessary to recite the statement of facts. Defendant's sole proposition asserts that the trial court erred in refusing defendant's request for a court reporter during the voir dire examination. We are of the opinion that this proposition is well taken. The Rocord reflects that on the hearing of defendant's motion for new trial, the Court remarked:

'THE COURT: All right. Comes on for hearing the motion for failure to provide a Court Reporter and move to dismiss. The occasion for this particular motion is that during the vior dire examination in the absence of a reporter the Assistant District Attorney asked the jurors whether or not they'd been reading the papers about the proposed changes in laws concerning marihuana, stimulants, LSD and so forth, and he even went so far as to ask the jurors if they realized that, under the proposed amendments, LSD, the possession of LSD would become a felony; to that some objection was...