Turner v. State, F-79-580
| Decision Date | 10 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. F-79-580,F-79-580 |
| Citation | 629 P.2d 1263 |
| Parties | James Calvin TURNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
James Calvin Turner was convicted of unlawful delivery of a controlled drug after he gave some Demerol to two narcotics agents in Ada. The delivery occurred after Turner received a telephone call from a man named Johnson, a drifter whom Turner had befriended. Prior to this drug transaction, Turner had arranged for Johnson to obtain room and board from Turner's mother, a ceramic shop owner who had been disabled by an accident. In exchange, Johnson had agreed to assist Mrs. Turner in maintaining her business. Unbeknownst to Turner, Johnson was cooperating with the agents when he complained to Turner about feeling pain. Turner took the Demerol to the appointed motel room, but Johnson was not there. Instead, his two "friends" were there. They accepted the Demerol and offered payment, which Turner refused. The three men then toured the town of Ada.
Beyond this undisputed core of the story, the testimonies differed greatly. Turner said he gave the men one tablet of Demerol, which he took from his mother's prescription; the agents said he brought a small vial of liquid Demerol and a syringe. Turner said he refused payment because he was just doing a favor for a friend; the agents said he refused payment because the drug was a sample given in prospect of a larger sale. Turner said that during the tour of Ada the two men repeatedly asked him questions about drug sources and other criminal activity, questions which he did not answer; the agents said that Turner volunteered much information about drugs and crimes which could be committed.
Three assignments of error are asserted. The only one necessitating discussion pertains to the introduction of evidence of other crimes.
The crime charged was delivery of one unit of Demerol to undercover agents on or about July 1, 1977. Additional irrelevant evidence included the following allusions:
During the State's case-in-chief, one agent testified that on July 1, 1977, the appellant had mentioned the fact that marijuana was available and that he knew a specific source where it could be obtained. Later that night, the agent said he asked the appellant for Demerol, and the appellant expressed regret that he hadn't known earlier that the agent wanted the drug because he had been in possession of eighty (80) hits. The agent testified that the appellant agreed to sell him Demerol and Valium the following day. Then the agent testified that the appellant had not accepted payment because this delivery was but a token of the larger sale planned for the next day.
When this witness was cross-examined, the defense attorney asked what had prompted the appellant to come to the motel. Despite the fact that the State's case for delivery of an unlawful drug involved the activity of an informant with whom the appellant had allegedly agreed to consummate a drug transaction on July 1, 1977, the agent injected an evidentiary harpoon in his reply to the defense attorney by testifying that the appellant had agreed to bring a silencer to the motel. The prejudicial effect of reference to a silencer and the lack of pertinence of a silencer to the drug offense is apparent.
Still in presenting its case-in-chief, the State elicited testimony from the second agent regarding large quantities of Demerol in the appellant's possession prior to the crime and plans for subsequent deliveries of drugs.
In presenting its defense, the defense recalled the second agent. That agent again interjected a harpoon concerning the silencer that the appellant was allegedly going to obtain at a later meeting. Then, on cross-examination by the assistant district attorney the same agent injected evidence of an alleged plan to commit a robbery. The agent began his story in the context of a conversation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. State, F-95-84
...admitted without engaging in any analysis of probative value versus prejudicial effect. 49 Sattayarak, 887 P.2d at 1331; Turner v. State, 629 P.2d 1263 (Okl.Cr.1981). 50 Blakely, 841 P.2d at 51 20 O.S.1991, § 3001.1; Hammon v. State, 898 P.2d 1287, 1302 (Okl.Cr.1995). 52 The State relies on......
-
Rojem v. State, F-85-485
...§ 2404(B), and was undoubtedly highly prejudicial. See Lewis v. State, 651 P.2d 1344, 1346 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Turner v. State, 629 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Okla.Crim.App.1981). When an accused is put on trial, he is to be convicted, if at all, by relevant evidence that shows him guilty of the of......
-
Jones v. State
...deprived appellant of a substantial right rising to the level of plain error under 12 O.S.1981, § 2104(D). Cf. Turner v. State, 629 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Okla.Crim.App.1981). In her third and final assignment, appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling her demurrer to the evidence, mor......
-
Sattayarak v. State
...Roulston v. State, 307 P.2d 861 (Okl.Cr.1957).18 12 O.S.1981, § 2404(B); Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okl.Cr.1979).19 Turner v. State, 629 P.2d 1263 (Okl.Cr.1981).20 Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143 (Okl.Cr.1994); Brown v. State, 753 P.2d 908 (Okl.Cr.1988); Lamb v. State, 767 P.2d 887 (Okl.......