Carter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Carter v. State

1970 OK CR 26, 478 P.2d 912, 1970 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 231

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 25, 1970

DocketA-14769

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1970 OK CR 26 (Carter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. State, 1970 OK CR 26, 478 P.2d 912, 1970 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 231 (Okla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NIX, Judge:

Lotis C. Carter, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime of Armed Robbery. He was tried before a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary, and appeals.

He bases his sole contention of error upon the proposition that there was testimony and reference to a pre-trial lineup identification and defendant contends the prosecuting witness relied upon said pretrial identification to identify defendant at the time of trial. We cannot agree with defendant’s contentions, as the record reveals that the prosecuting witness identified defendant during the trial as the person who, along with another person, robbed her on the date in question, and she testified she did not use the pre-trial lineup as a basis for the identification. We do not feel that the testimony which was injected into the record by the defense counsel comes within the purview of the rationale laid down in Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149.

Even though there was drastic conflict in the testimony, it constituted a question for the jury and there was sufficient evidence, if believed, upon which the jury could base their verdict. The record reflects that the defendant had a fair trial represented by able counsel, and no errors are apparent that would justify reversal or modification.

The judgment and sentence is

Affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NIX, Judge:

Lotis C. Carter, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime of Armed Robbery. He was tried before a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary, and appeals.

He bases his sole contention of error upon the proposition that there was testimony and reference to a pre-trial lineup identification and defendant contends the prosecuting witness relied upon said pretrial identification to identify defendant at the time of trial. We cannot agree with defendant’s contentions, as the record reveals that the prosecuting witness identified defendant during the trial as the person who, along with another person, robbed her on the date in question, and she testified she did not use the pre-trial lineup as a basis for the identification. We do not feel that the testimony which was injected into the record by the defense counsel comes within the purview of the rationale laid down in Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149.

Even though there was drastic conflict in the testimony, it constituted a question for the jury and there was sufficient evidence, if believed, upon which the jury could base their verdict. The record reflects that the defendant had a fair trial represented by able counsel, and no errors are apparent that would justify reversal or modification.

The judgment and sentence is

Affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1970 OK CR 26, 478 P.2d 912, 1970 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-oklacrimapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack