Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 05 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. F--74--633,F--74--633
• Citation: 535 P.2d 315
• Parties: Ronald Justin WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 315

535 P.2d 315

Ronald Justin WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F--74--633.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 5, 1975.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1975.

Lucas & Cate, Norman, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., James L. Swartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., James D. Bednar, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Ronald Justin Wright, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Cleveland County, Case No. CRF--73--204, for the offense of Conspiracy to Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 421. The jury recommended, and the court imposed, a sentence of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant and Carey David Raley (not involved in this appeal), were charged with conspiracy to murder Officer Mark Boyd of the Norman Police Department. According to the evidence adduced at trial by the State, the conspiracy developed during a series of meetings and transactions involving defendant, several of his companions, and three individuals working undercover for the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The first meeting, which occurred at approximately 7:00 p.m. on May 15, 1973, in the coffee shop of the Holiday Inn in Norman, had been arranged between a Donald Kind and Mike Miller, an undercover informant working under the direction of FDEA Special Agents Roland Battleson and Frank Alexander. Agent Battleson's version of the first meeting was as follows:

He (Battleson), Alexander, and Miller arrived in the coffee shop to find defendant and Donald King already seated in a booth. Miller introduced Battleson to the latter two as 'Ed,' whereupon Battleson, posing as a 'hit man,' asked the defendant, 'Are you the man who wants the officer killed?', to which defendant replied, 'Yes, I am.' Battleson asked defendant if any other individuals were involved, and defendant replied that there were. Battleson then told defendant that he would like to meet them, and defendant agreed to try to arrange such a meeting. (Tr. 22) After further conversation, during which defendant identified the intended victim as Officer Boyd, the parties separated, with defendant and King agreeing to contact the agents that evening--both as to a proposed narcotics transaction and as to the possibility of meeting the other murder conspirators.

The informant Miller's testimony consisted solely of his statement that he had introduced the Special Agents to defendant and King at the above place and time.

According to the State, the next meeting involving defendant occurred on the afternoon of May 16, 1973, at the Howard Johnson Restaurant in Norman. The Special Agents testified that they arrived there first, and were joined shortly by defendant, who was accompanied by Carey David Raley and David Lester Reed. Referring to Raley, Agent Battleson asked defendant, '. . . is this the man that wants the officer killed?' to which defendant replied, 'Yes, it is.' (Tr. 28) Battleson and Raley then went out into the parking lot where the agent opened the trunk of an unmarked government car and inspected a rifle which the agent pretended was to be used in the murder. Raley stated that he thought the weapon should be sufficient to do the job. (Tr. 31) When the two returned to the booth inside the restaurant, Raley remarked (in defendant's presence), 'That is quite a machine you have got' to which Battleson replied, 'Yes, it should work all right.' (Tr. 33) During the course of the conversation, the parties negotiated the price for the killing, with Agent Battleson initially stating that he normally charged $5,000.00; then Raley said that he had lined up someone who would do it for $1,500.00, at which time Battleson lowered his price to $2,500.00. Raley agreed to that price and the parties proceeded to his apartment elsewhere in Norman, with Raley, Reed and Battleson in Raley's car, and Agent Alexander and defendant in another car.

During the transaction which followed in Raley's apartment, Agent Battleson testified that Raley produced two boxes containing what was claimed to be $1,500.00 worth of narcotics. Battleson told him he was 'satisfied,' (Tr. 37), and commented to defendant (who was present at all times), that Officer Boyd must have really upset people to cause them to try to kill him. Defendant replied, 'yes, that Boyd had been irritating a lot of people and had been stopping them a lot for traffic violations and had busted a lot of people in Norman.' (Tr. 39) At that point Raley and Agent Alexander left the apartment for approximately an hour and a half in order to make arrangements for a proposed drug transaction. During their absence, defendant, Reed, and Agent Battleson were left alone in the apartment, but did not discuss the proposed murder. When Raley and Alexander returned, everyone except Reed moved to the kitchen table where discussion about the murder resumed. Battleson told Raley that he was willing to accept $1,000.00 worth of drugs to complete the contract, and further testified that he 'told Mr. Raley that I wanted some show on his part to let me know some payments . . . to let me know that I had the contract to do the killing and that he wouldn't give someone else me job.' (Tr. 41) Raley then agreed to give Battleson $100.00 worth of drugs as a down payment, and gave him three bags containing tablets which Raley claimed were amphetamines. After inspecting the drugs, Battleson again 'asked Raley if this was a satisfactory arrangement.' Raley looked at defendant, who 'nodded his head affirmatively' (Tr. 42), and Raley then indicated his agreement. The agents left shortly thereafter.

Agent Alexander's testimony as to the first meeting was substantially the same as Battleson's, except for one minor deviation. ¹ His version of the second meeting was also the substantial equivalent of Battleson's; however, he added that he (Alexander), passing as a drug dealer, had conversed primarily about a drug transaction rather than the proposed murder. As to the transaction at Raley's apartment, Alexander's testimony again corroborated Battleson's, though he added the following account of the transfer of the three bags of amphetamines:

'Q. (By Mr. Boswell) . . . You were all seated at the table, and Mr. Raley came back in toward the table and made these statements, and then what occurred?

A. (By Agent Alexander) To the best of my recollection, before Mr. Raley handed these three bags to Agent Battleson, he asked Mr. Raley . . .. I mean, Mr. Raley asked if Mr. Wright was sure that we were okay.

Q. And did Mr. Wright reply?

A. There was no reply as far as words were concerned.

Q. Was there any kind of physical sign?

A. Yes, sir, there was a nod on the part of Mr. Raley.' ² (Tr. 80)

On cross-examination, Agent Alexander testified that the first meeting had been arranged by the informant Miller, who had put the witness in touch with Donald King concerning a possible narcotics deal. (Tr. 82)

Defendant's version of the facts was presented through his own testimony and that of Donald King. King testified that he had been contacted a few weeks prior to the first meeting by the informant Miller, who had told him that he knew of some potential narcotic buyers. The first meeting with the agents, said King, was for the porpose of carrying out a narcotics deal, and defendant, whom King said was not connected with the narcotics deal or the murder plot, was 'just with me.' (Tr. 96) King further testified that defendant had attended the second meeting only for the purpose of introducing Raley to the agents in connection with the dope deal, and was not acting as a go-between in the murder conspiracy. On cross-examination, King was asked whether he had heard any discussion of the murder during the first meeting. He stated that he had, but that Agent Battleson had brought up the subject. When asked for defendant's reaction to the first mention of the subject, King stated:

'A. I think the question was, do you know somebody that wants somebody . . . like killed, you know, or shot, and we said . . . we said that we know somebody that had talked about it, but we had no part in it.' (Tr. 98)

King also stated that defendant had known Raley previously.

Testifying in his own behalf, defendant admitted that he had been at the first meeting with King, Battleson, Alexander and Miller. He disputed Agent Battleson's testimony as to the first meeting only in that Battleson had incorrectly stated that Raley had been present. ³ As to his conversation with Battleson during that meeting, defendant said:

'He asked me if I was the one that wanted Officer Boyd killed, and I said, 'no, sir, I was not, but that I possibly knew someone who did. '' (Tr. 104)

Defendant later stated on cross-examination that he had been referring to Raley when making this statement. He also testified that he had not personally known Officer Boyd, but that 'Officer Boyd was quite well known. I had heard it first . . . I have heard of him from many pe...