Winrow v. State, F-81-382

Decision Date08 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. F-81-382,F-81-382
Citation645 P.2d 1019
PartiesDevon WINROW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

BUSSEY, Judge:

From his conviction, in Pottawatomie County District Court, Case No. CRF-80-230, of Rape in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony, the appellant, Devon Winrow, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, raises two (2) assignments of error.

In his initial assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict. He contends that the victim's testimony was so impeached by that of Argie Davis, a close friend of the victim's girlfriend, who testified that the victim had told her that if her girlfriend didn't quit seeing the defendant, a 33 year old black man, "she was going to holler rape," that the burden then shifted to the State to corroborate the victim's testimony, and that in the absence thereof, the trial court had a duty to sustain his motion. However, the defendant is not correct in his assertions; a review of the record reveals that the victim's testimony was sufficiently corroborated during the State's case-in-chief. Bruner v. State, 612 P.2d 1375 (Okl.Cr.1980). 1 There was scientific confirmation that the fourteen year old victim had had sexual intercourse (acid phosphatase and the presence of chlorene in easily detected quantities was found to be present in the girl's vaginal cavity and on her panties). Brumbelow v. State, 488 P.2d 1298 (Okl.Cr.1971). Further, the prosecutrix's younger brother testified that the defendant came to his house looking for the victim that night, saying his girlfriend wanted to talk to her, and that the girlfriend came by the house about an hour later looking for his sister, and left in a hurry when he told her that she was not home. This testimony was consistent with the victim's, and contrary to the defendant's and his girlfriend. We find that a prima facie case has been established by the State, and that the motion for a directed verdict was properly denied. Renfro v. State, 607 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr.1980). 2

In his final assignment of error, the defendant claims that there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence submitted to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, and therefore the evidence should have been excluded. We do not agree. The record demonstrates that the examining physician and the nurse who assisted him labeled the exhibits and gave them to a sheriff's deputy, who in turn placed them in envelopes, to which he affixed his signature, and gave the envelopes to the OSBI. There, two forensic chemists tested the evidence, and one of them, Mary Long, testified that the exhibits had been kept in her possession and had not been tampered with other than for the tests that had been run on them. Thus, the chain of custody was properly established and the evidence properly admitted. See, Hays v. State, 617 P.2d 223 (Okl.Cr.1980); and Blades v. State, 619 P.2d 875 (Okl.Cr.1979). Furthermore, the defendant failed to cite any authority in support of his argument. Sandefur v. State, 461 P.2d 954 (Okl.Cr.1969). This assignment of error is without merit.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence appealed from is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., concurs.

CORNISH, J., concurs in results.

1 In Bruner, we stated:

... (A) conviction for rape may be had on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, or on slight corroboration, where the testimony of the prosecutrix is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 2 Junio 1983
    ...we will not interfere with the verdict even though there may be sharp conflicts in the evidence. See for instance, Winrow v. State, 645 P.2d 1019 (Okl.Cr.1982), and cases cited therein. This assignment of error is without In his second assignment of error, the appellant complains of alleged......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT