Teegarden v. State, F--76--911

• Decision Date: 26 April 1977
• Docket Number: No. F--76--911,F--76--911
• Citation: 563 P.2d 660
• Parties: Robert Lloyd TEEGARDEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 660

563 P.2d 660

Robert Lloyd TEEGARDEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F--76--911.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 26, 1977.

Pete Silva, Jr., Tulsa, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donnie G. Pope, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Robert Lloyd Teegarden, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF--76--672, with the offense of Grand Larceny, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1701 and 21 O.S.1971, § 51. The case was tried to a jury and a guilty verdict was returned. Punishment was assessed at seven (7) years' imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

James Strozier, State's first witness, testified that on February 5, 1976, he was employed as a clerk in the Sporting Goods Department of Skaggs Albertsons Store in Tulsa, where, on that date he saw the defendant; the witness recognized him because the defendant had been in the store the night before. As the defendant approached the gun counter, Mr. Strozier left the customer whom he was helping and removed the same two pistols from the counter which the defendant had been looking at the night before. The guns were laid on the counter and the witness returned to his customer. A few moments later the witness glanced up, and saw the defendant leaving the Sporting Goods Department; he immediately noticed that the pistols were missing from the counter. The witness pursued the defendant out of the store, but lost him. Mr. Strozier testified that other persons were in the Sporting Goods Department at that time but there was no one in the vicinity of the pistols.

The next witness called by the State was David Ward, owner and operator of Tulsa's Shooters Supply, a gun store. On February 10, 1976, the defendant entered the store, purchased some .9mm. ammunition and then began to browse around; the witness, an employee and a customer were talking by one of the counters, while another customer talked on the phone. The witness stated that he observed the defendant move over to a counter on which were laying two pistols. The defendant then left the store, and the witness then noticed that one of the pistols was missing. A search of the area failed to reveal either the defendant or the pistol, at which time the police were called.

The State then rested.

The defendant rested without presenting any evidence.

In his first assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine, presented and argued prior to trial. The defendant argued that the State should not be permitted to introduce evidence of crimes committed by the defendant other than the one charged in the information, which alleged that on February 5, 1976, defendant stole from Skaggs Albertsons Store two Colt automatic pistols. More specifically, the defendant asserts that it was error for trial court to allow into evidence testimony tending to show that on February 10th he stole a pistol from Shooter's Supply.

We note first that although the motion in limine was properly made and argued prior to trial, defendant made no objection at trial to the introduction of the testimony relating to the theft from Shooter's Supply. We are of the opinion that defendant thereby failed to preserve his objections and they are thus waived. In the case of State v. Abbott, Okl.Cr., 545 P.2d 792 (1976), we had occasion to deal with motions in limine. In Abbott, the State perfected an appeal on a reserve...