Watts v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. A--15703,A--15703 |
| Citation | 487 P.2d 981 |
| Parties | Michael Wayne WATTS, 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 |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Title 22 O.S.1961, § 702 applies only to testimony given at a trial and when no testimony is introduced during the trial of a spouse, this section is not violated.
2. A defendant is entitled to inspect a signed confession and to be informed as to the contents of an oral statement, prior to trial, upon proper application.
3. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment, nor their admissibility affected.
4. Whenever it becomes relevant to describe a person, place or thing, and photographs and pictures are shown to be faithful reproductions of whatever they purport to reproduce, they are admissible for the purpose of assisting the court or jury in understanding the situation.
5. Objections must be made to improper argument during trial, and defendant must go further and move the objectionable argument to be stricken from the jury's consideration, unless the remarks were such they could not be cured by their withdrawal from the jury.
6. Attorneys, in their argument to the jury, are entitled to a wide range in presenting their views to the jury, and it is only when they intentionally go outside the record for the purpose of exciting the passion and prejudice of the jury, so as to cause them to act in a biased manner, will the appellate court interfere so as to set aside the verdict.
7. The granting or denial of a continuance of a criminal case is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.
8. Directions or standards should not be given to the jury to be used in determining whether or not to assess as punishment life imprisonment or death.
9. Where the defendant is charged with a felony, first offense, and there is no statutory authority for a two-stage proceeding, the trial should be conducted in a one stage proceeding.
10. Imposition of the death penalty did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, nor violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Charles Owens, Judge.
Michael Wayne Watts was convicted of the crime of Murder; his punishment was fixed at death in the electric chair, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Henry W. Floyd, Oklahoma City, court-appointed attorney, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Max A. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., on briefs, Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., on oral argument, for defendant in error.
Michael Wayne Watts, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the offense of Murder. He entered a plea of not guilty by person of insanity, wherein the court ordered a trial by jury to determine the present sanity of the defendant to stand trial. The jury returned a verdict finding him sane. He was then tried before a jury who found him guilty of Murder, and assessed his punishment at death, and from said judgment and sentence, he appeals.
The evidence adduced at the trial revealed that on November 15, 1968, Eva Sigler lived with her husband, Willard Bill Sigler, in a trailer house in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. She testified that at approximately 7:30 p.m. she and her husband were watching television and the defendant came into the trailer carrying a rifle. He fired a shot behind her head and informed them that, 'This is a holdup.' (T 83). Her husband gave him his billfold and the defendant asked if they had any guns. He ordered them to lean over the couch and she heard him looking around the trailer. They subsequently sat down on the couch and the defendant fired a shot which struck Mr. Sigler in the eye. He then asked her, 'if she had ever been screwed by a nigger.' (T 90). He took her to the bedroom and raped her. She did not resist and upon completing the intercourse, he stated that 'he ought to kill me because I would tell on him.' She begged him not to kill her. He struck her in the head with the gun. The defendant took some rifles from a closet and left. She passed out and regained consciousness two days later in the hospital. She remained in the hospital two weeks and upon returning to the trailer discovered that several guns, a transistor radio, and money, were missing. She stated that she was called to the Sheriff's office on February 6, 1969 to identify the defendant. There was no line-up and the defendant was the only person present. She did not make a positive identification at that time, but was positive that the defendant was the person that came to the trailer.
Dr. Hartmill testified that he performed an autopsy on the decedent. The cause of death, in his opinion, was a bullet wound of the head and brain. The bullet removed from the body was a .25 caliber, or less.
Wade Brooks stated that he was married to the defendant's cousin and was living with them in December of 1968. He was ultimately declared to be a hostile witness. He admitted making two written statements 1 involving the defendant with the murder. He stated that the statements were true. It was brought out on cross-examination that the witness was in the county jail awaiting a Motion to Revoke a Suspended Sentence. He was evasive as to the date the defendant admitted committing the offense. He admitted that he had given some thought that the State could 'sock it to him' (T 143) if he did not say what they wanted.
Sheriff Bob Turner testified that he was with the defendant on January 2, 1969, in the courtroom awaiting the arrival of a Public Defender. The defendant made the statement that 'he didn't see any reason for wasting time waiting on a lawyer that he didn't need a lawyer that he had already told them that he had killed a man.' (T 171). He stated he was not questioning the defendant at the time of the statement and admitted that the defendant has subsequently denied making the statement.
Howard Bugg was one of the first police officers to arrive at the scene. He described what he observed and identified two pictures as true representations of the inside of the trailer. One picture was of the decedent and the other was the bedroom where Mrs. Sigler was found. The pictures were admitted into evidence over the objection of the defendant.
The defendant presented one witness, Dr. James Cox, a psychiatrist. He testified that he examined the defendant on two separate occasions and made a background investigation. The defendant, in his opinion, was mentally ill both at the time of the alleged offense and the date of the trial.
The State called two witnesses in rebuttal--Dr. Price and Dr. Schmidt, psychiatrists at Central State Memorial Hospital. They testified that they examined the defendant during a five week period of observation. It was their opinion that the defendant was not mentally ill at the time of the offense or at the date of trial; that he knew right from wrong and understood the nature and consequences of his acts.
The defendant first contends that the arrest was illegal and was made after a violation of a privileged communication between husband and wife. The defendant cites 22 O.S.1961, § 702, which states:
'Except as otherwise provided in this and the following chapter, the rules of evidence in civil cases are applicable also in criminal cases; Provided, however, that neither husband nor wife shall in any case be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed one against the other, or except in a criminal prosecution against either the husband or wife, or both, for a felony committed by either, or both, against the minor children of either the husband or the wife, but they may in all criminal cases be witnesses for each other, and shall be subject to cross-examination as other witnesses, and shall in no event on a criminal trial be permitted to disclose communications made by one to the other except on a trial of an offense committed by one against the other or except on a trial of a felony committed by one, or both, against the minor children of either the husband or the wife.'
It is our opinion that this statute applies only to testimony given at a trial and has no application to the present factual situation in the defendant's wife and not testify at the trial, nor was any reference made to her statements. We, therefore, find this proposition to be without merit.
The next proposition alleges that the trial court erred in allowing a statement made by defendant to be admitted as evidence and further that the court erred in denying his motion requiring the District Attorney to reveal the statement prior to trial. The defendant filed a Motion to Reveal prior to trial. It is noted he requested: 'The following papers, to-wit: any and all statements made by defendant herein.' (Page 6 of the Sanity Transcript). The court then inquired as to the State's position. The District Attorney informed the court that the State did not have any written statements made by the defendant. (Page 8 of the Sanity Transcript).
The modern trend of the law is that a defendant should be allowed to inspect a signed confession prior to trial. This Court has so held in the case of Doakes v. Dist. Ct. Oklahoma Co., Okl.Cr., 447 P.2d 461, wherein we stated:
'Therefore, we conclude that where an accused gives a statement to the police under distressing circumstances without benefit of counsel and is later unable to remember what he said in the statement in order to assist counsel in his defense, substantial justice requires the prosecution to allow the accused or his counsel a pre-trial inspection of such statement.'
In the case at bar there was no written statement, but rather two oral statements made by the defendant. The first confession...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duvall v. State
...819 (Okl.Cr.1988). Further, a defendant is entitled to his own custodial written statements and the substance of oral ones. Watts v. State, 487 P.2d 981 (Okl.Cr.1971). We have previously held that police investigative reports are not discoverable unless they contain evidence which is both "......
-
Stout v. State
...to grant or refuse pre-trial discovery. Granting discovery in this instance was in conformance with our reasoning in Watts v. State, 487 P.2d 981 (Okl.Cr.1971), that upon proper application the State should be required to reveal the contents of oral After the question was asked and defense ......
-
Knighton v. State
...Duvall v. State, 825 P.2d 621, 633 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied 506 U.S. 878, 113 S.Ct. 224, 121 L.Ed.2d 161 (1992); Watts v. State, 487 P.2d 981, 986 (Okl.Cr.1971). Within this context we address appellant's second proposition of error: that his rights to due process under the Fifth, Sixth,......
-
Batie v. State
...of venue and continuance because of new witnesses which were endorsed 12 days before trial. Both requests were denied. See Watts v. State, Okl.Cr., 487 P.2d 981 (1971), which states this Court's position as '. . . This Court has consistently held that the granting or denial of a continuance......