Staller v. State, No. F-95-378

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtLUMPKIN; JOHNSON, P.J., and CHAPEL, V.P.J., and LANE; STRUBHAR; STRUBHAR
Citation1996 OK CR 48,932 P.2d 1136
Decision Date23 September 1996
Docket NumberNo. F-95-378
PartiesJerry STALLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

Page 1136

932 P.2d 1136
Jerry STALLER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-95-378.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Sept. 23, 1996.
Rehearings Denied Jan. 13, 1997.

Carl W. Longmire, Pryor, and William D. Lunn, Tulsa, for Appellant at trial.

William D. Lunn, Tulsa, for Appellant on appeal.

Ben Loring, District Attorney and Winston H. Connor, III, Assistant District Attorney, Jay, for the State at trial.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma and Patrick T. Crawley, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, for the State on appeal.

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, Judge:

Appellant Jerry Staller was tried by jury and convicted of Unlawful Delivery of Marijuana (63 O.S.Supp.1993, § 2-401), Case No. CF-94-22, in the District Court of Delaware County. The jury recommended as punishment thirty (30) years imprisonment and the trial court sentenced accordingly. Appellant raises the following propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. Neither Senior Probation and Parole Officer Price nor City of Jay Police Officer Shambaugh had authority to organize and conduct a controlled drug buy in Delaware County, outside the City of Jay city limits.

II. The prosecution repeatedly commented on Appellant's right to remain silent.

Page 1138

III. The prosecutor intimidated all of Appellant's prospective witnesses by threatening to file perjury charges against them if they testified.

IV. The prosecutor's claim that he had been pushed by defense counsel in front of the jury was designed to arouse prejudice against Appellant.

V. The State failed to rebut evidence that a juror had improperly conversed with government officials and witnesses.

VI. The prosecutor improperly suggested before the jury that Appellant had committed other crimes.

VII. The prosecution's introduction of threats against its informant coupled with the court's warning of threats to the jurors prejudiced Appellant.

VIII. The prosecution refused to produce evidence that was favorable to the defense.

IX. A transcription of a tape recording introduced should not have been handed to the jury.

X. The court improperly ruled that evidence of other crimes would be admitted in rebuttal by the State if the defense put on any testimony.

XI. The prosecutor improperly invoked societal alarm in closing argument.

XII. The prosecutor improperly commented on evidence outside the record.

XIII. Cumulative error denied Appellant a fair trial.

After a thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that neither reversal nor modification is required under the law and evidence.

Having reviewed each of the propositions listed above, only one warrants discussion here. In his first proposition of error, Appellant asserts that neither of the law enforcement officials involved in the drug buy, Senior Probation and Parole Officer Price and City of Jay Police Officer Shambaugh, had the authority to organize and conduct a controlled drug buy in Delaware County, outside the City of Jay city limits. Relying on State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070 (Okl.Cr.1993), Appellant contends the affidavit for the arrest warrant was fatally defective because the evidence supporting it was obtained by peace officers either exercising the powers of their office outside their jurisdiction or conducting activities beyond the scope of their authority. The State argues that this Court should find Stuart is not applicable and asserts that under 70 O.S.1991, § 3311, et seq., every peace officer in the State of Oklahoma is certified by the State, not by the political subdivision for whom the officer is employed, and therefore is empowered to act anywhere in the State.

Initially, the State's reliance on 70 O.S.1991, § 3311, et. seq., as well as 21 O.S.1991, § 99; 11 O.S.1991, § 34-101 and 11 O.S.1991, § 27-113 is misplaced. These statutes, setting forth the general definitions of peace officers and the provisions of the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), do not support the argument that a peace officer's powers are not limited by any jurisdictional boundaries within the State. The statutes provide that the commission to serve as a peace officer is issued by separate governmental entities, i.e. a particular town, city or county, which have geographical limitations on their jurisdiction. These governmental entities are not empowered with statewide jurisdiction. Therefore, they cannot empower a peace officer in their employ with greater powers than they have.

In Stuart, we upheld the general rule stated in Graham v. State, 560 P.2d 200, 203 (Okl.Cr.1977) that a peace officer's authority cannot extend beyond his jurisdiction. 1 While we affirm this rule, we find the facts of

Page 1139

the present case and the confusion some of the language in Stuart has caused warrants a further look at the case.

In Stuart, Sapulpa city police...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 8, 2004
    ...the officer acts as a private citizen with no greater authority than that of a private citizen. Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139-1140; see also State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 10, 868 P.2d 709, 712; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 9, 841 P.2d 591, ¶ 12 This Cou......
  • State v. Keefe, Case Number: S–2015–961
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 31, 2017
    ...the assistance of another municipality's officers; and (3) service of an arrest warrant. Id. ; Staller v. State , 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139 ; Graham v. State , 1977 OK CR 1, ¶ 14, 560 P.2d 200, 203. "Otherwise, once outside the city limits of the municipality by which they ar......
  • Simic v. State ex rel. Dps, No. 102,386.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 30, 2005
    ...an officer's authority to effect a valid arrest does not extend beyond his or her jurisdiction. Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, 932 P.2d 1136. They also agree that, with only a few exceptions, a law enforcement officer operating within his or her jurisdiction cannot effect a valid warrantl......
  • O'Carroll, In re, No. 87646
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • January 20, 1998
    ...ch. 360, § 3. Dugger v. State, ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1992 OK 105, 834 P.2d 964, 966. 17 Holt, 1997 OK 12, p 29, 932 P.2d at 1136. 18 1992 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 172, § 2, adding language to § 2375(H)(2) that assessment or refund may be made after the expiration of the three-year lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 8, 2004
    ...the officer acts as a private citizen with no greater authority than that of a private citizen. Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139-1140; see also State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 10, 868 P.2d 709, 712; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 9, 841 P.2d 591, ¶ 12 This Cou......
  • State v. Keefe, Case Number: S–2015–961
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 31, 2017
    ...the assistance of another municipality's officers; and (3) service of an arrest warrant. Id. ; Staller v. State , 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139 ; Graham v. State , 1977 OK CR 1, ¶ 14, 560 P.2d 200, 203. "Otherwise, once outside the city limits of the municipality by which they ar......
  • Simic v. State ex rel. Dps, No. 102,386.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 30, 2005
    ...an officer's authority to effect a valid arrest does not extend beyond his or her jurisdiction. Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, 932 P.2d 1136. They also agree that, with only a few exceptions, a law enforcement officer operating within his or her jurisdiction cannot effect a valid warrantl......
  • O'Carroll, In re, No. 87646
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • January 20, 1998
    ...ch. 360, § 3. Dugger v. State, ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1992 OK 105, 834 P.2d 964, 966. 17 Holt, 1997 OK 12, p 29, 932 P.2d at 1136. 18 1992 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 172, § 2, adding language to § 2375(H)(2) that assessment or refund may be made after the expiration of the three-year lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT