Watt v. City of Oklahoma City

• Decision Date: 23 April 1981
• Docket Number: No. M-79-565,M-79-565
• Citation: Watt v. City of Oklahoma City, 628 P.2d 371 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981)
• Parties: Charles Ray WATT, Appellant, v. The CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 371

628 P.2d 371

Charles Ray WATT, Appellant, v.The CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Appellee.

No. M-79-565.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 23, 1981.

An appeal from the Municipal Court of Record of Oklahoma City; Edward B. Dycus, Judge.

Charles Ray Watt, appellant, was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident in the Municipal Court of Record of Oklahoma City, State of Oklahoma, Case No. 79-023156, was sentenced to ten (10) days in the Oklahoma City Jail and appeals. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Ed McConnel, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Fred H. Anderson, Assistant Municipal Counselor, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

The appellant was convicted by a jury trial in the Municipal Court of Record for the City of Oklahoma City, their Case No. 79-023156, of Leaving the Scene of an Accident.His sentence was ten days in the city jail.

The two assignments of error will be consolidated because they focus on the same problem: that is, the comment by a prosecutor on the constitutional right of a defendant to remain silent following his arrest and acknowledgement of the Miranda warnings.When the appellant testified, he explained that he had loaned his car to a friend prior to and including the time of the accident.On cross-examination, the City's attorney asked: "Since that time, have you come forward to the Oklahoma City Police Department and let them know that someone else was driving your car?"Following the appellant's objection, the prosecutor continued in the presence of the jury, "... (T)he man has been charged with a crime, and he has evidence that would prove his innocence.I think it would only be natural that that individual would come forward and clarify the matter."The defense requested the judge to admonish the jury not to consider this statement and the judge complied.With that, the defense rested, and, following instructions, the City delivered its closing argument.During this closing argument, the following comment was made: "... (I)f I was Mr. Watt, if I was charged with a crime and I knew that there was a witness out there to testify where I was and where my car was, I'd sure be getting her down here."Although the defense objected, the judge overruled the objection because the statement was made during closing argument.

In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91(1976), the Supreme Court held that it was error to question a defendant regarding his post-arrest silence for purposes of impeachment.This is a violation of his due process rights, and silence following the Miranda warnings is to be interpreted as an exercise of the Miranda rights.To comment on that exercise is to negate the rights given.

This Court has found error when the prosecution...