Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 03 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13167,A-13167 |
| Parties | Bill WILLIAMS, 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. The order of presentment of proof in the trial of a criminal case is largely a matter of discretion of the trial court.
2. Where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty as charged, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not interfere with the verdict, even though there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.
3. Where it is developed that a chief of police of a city observed a car being driven along highway swerve over the center line and back off the shoulder of the highway, the officer was in performance of his duty in following and observing such car; and when his further observance indicated that the driver was not operating the vehicle in a normal and safe manner but at an unlawful rate of speed, he was justified in arresting such motorist.
4. Where in questioning motorist he is found to have had the odor of whiskey on his breath and otherwise to have shown signs of intoxication, the officer was then justified in searching the car as incident to the arrest.
5. As a general proposition the Court of Criminal Appeals has said that for the purpose of preserving the peace and to prevent crime, a peace officer or private citizen may make reasonable inquiry of persons coming under his observation or brought to his knowledge under circumstances which reasonably suggest that a crime has been or is about to committed.
6. Where defendant is lawfully arrested, and his automobile searched, the search made incident to such lawful arrest is not an invasion of the defendant's constitutional rights.
Appeal from the County Court of Pittsburg County; O. H. Whitt, Judge.
Bill Williams was convicted of the offense of drunken driving, and appeals. Affirmed.
James M. May, McAlester, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by Bill Williams from a judgment and sentence rendered against him for operating a motor vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The case was instituted in the county court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, by information alleging the offense occurred on July 24, 1961 on the public highway No. 270, at a point three miles east of Hartshorne, Oklahoma, in Pittsburg County.
The case was tried to a jury, which convicted the defendant and fixed his punishment at a fine of $250 and ten days in the county jail. Judgment and sentence was entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.
The defendant's first serious contention is that he was prejudiced by the trial court not permitting him to show his whereabouts before and up to the time of his arrest, until the latter part of his defense.
We are of the opinion that this contention is without merit, since the sole issue was as to the defendant's condition at the time of his arrest--was he then in a drunken condition? We are not impressed with this contention, since admittedly the matter of order of proof in the trial of a case is largely a matter of discretion of the trial court. Mathies v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 308, 38 P.2d 588; Carr v. State, 91 Okl.Cr. 94, 216 P.2d 333 (cert. denied 340 U.S. 840, 71 S.Ct. 28, 95 L.Ed. 616); Pumpkin v. State, Okl.Cr., 295 P.2d 819; 88 C.J.S. Trial § 96, p. 206, n. 87-88. We are of the opinion that since the defendant got his proof before the jury, the order in which it was presented did not so materially affect the outcome as to be reversible.
Since the next two propositions urged by the defendant involve evidentiary matters, we shall briefly summarize the facts.
It appears that Arlie Freeman, police chief of Hartshorne, Oklahoma, was patrolling the east end of Hartshorne on Pennsylvania Avenue when he observed a Buick automobile driving east on Pennsylvania. The car would weave across the center line and back to the shoulder. There were two other automobiles between witness and the Buick, so he went around them, by aid of his siren and red light. When he did this, the Buick picked up speed until it was going 85 miles an hour, approaching a curve, on which the driver almost lost control. Officer Freeman related he put on his siren and pulled out his pistol. The occupants apparently observing him, pulled over to the side of the highway and stopped. The officer stated that he did not know who was driving the Buick until he pulled up by the side of it, and observed for the first time that Bill Williams, the defendant, was driving the car. The officer ordered the occupants out of the car and saw the defendant was intoxicated. He talked 'stuttering' and held to the car door handle and leaned up against the car door and his eyes were blood-shot. The defendant had a strong odor of intoxicating liquor about him, and was unsteady on his feet. The police chief placed the defendant and three of his companions, who were also intoxicated, under arrest. A fourth passenger in the car, it appears, was not intoxicated. Officer Freeman radioed for help. Before help arrived, Freeman searched the car and found two half-gallon jars on the floor board right behind the driver, one of which was full of non-tax paid whiskey, and the other contained about a drinking-glass full of whiskey.
Subsequently Deputy Sheriff J. D. Roberson and Kirt Roberts arrived on the scene. Deputy Roberson's testimony was that he observed the defendant, and that in his opinion the defendant was intoxicated; that his speech was slow, his eyes were 'reddened' and 'he didn't walk right, he staggered.' Witness took charge of the whiskey in the jars and accounted for its safe keeping as evidence. Deputy Roberts did not testify.
The defendant testified in his own behalf that he was not intoxicated; that he did not drive at an excessive speed, and that he did not weave on the highway but stayed on his side of the road. He further testified that he did not know there was any whiskey in the automobile, but he did know that some of the other occupants of the car had been drinking. However, he admitted he had drunk a couple of cans of beer some forty minutes before his arrest. Cross-examination of the defendant disclosed that he had three prior convictions for public drunkenness, one conviction for unlawful possession of nontax paid liquor, two convictions for assault and battery, and four convictions for disturbing the peace.
The foregoing evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, and comes within the rule announced in Sadler v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 97, 179 P.2d 479, and other cases holding that where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty as charged, this court will not interfere with the verdict, even though there is a sharp conflict in the evidence, and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.
The defendant's fifth contention is that the arrest was unlawful, being founded on suspicion and insufficient to support the search and seizure that followed.
The evidence on this point is to the effect that police chief Freeman first observed the Buick car about a block from the city limits. The first thing the officer noticed about the car was its 'weaving off over the [center] line and back off the shoulder * * * the righthand side.' It was going 'kinda slow * * * just drifting over and drifting back'. The officer said he observed this all the time from when he first saw the car until he stopped it. When he put on his siren to get the cars in front of him to pull...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keefe
...may be justified by the immediate need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury."); Williams v. State , 1962 OK CR 80, ¶ 20, 373 P.2d 91, 95–96 (police officer acting outside his jurisdiction had a duty to stop and arrest a suspected drunk driver). ¶ 13 The Court in Kieffer–Roden......
-
Glover v. State, F--76--278
...of error--that the verdict was not consistent with the weight of the evidence--is without merit. As we said in Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 373 P.2d 91, 94 (1962): '(W)here there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty as cha......
-
Sanders v. State, F--75--431
...conclude that the defendant is guilty, the case will not be reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. See, Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 373 P.2d 91 (1962); Brewer v. State, Okl.Cr., 452 P.2d 597 (1969), and Thompson v. State, Okl.Cr., 467 P.2d 523 (1970). While much of the evide......
-
Duke v. State, s. F--75--724
...were guilty as charged since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 373 P.2d 91 (1962); Mitchell v. State, Okl.Cr., 467 P.2d 509 (1970). An examination of the entire record reveals that sufficient competent evidenc......