Hack v. State
This text of 1982 OK CR 175 (Hack 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.
Opinion
OPINION
The appellant, Eugene Cecil Hack, was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court, in Case No. CRF-81-2052, of Robbery with Firearms, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and in Case No. CRF-81-2088, count 1, of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and count 2, of Assault with Intent to do Bodily Harm, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and he appeals.
The uncontroverted facts are that on April 24, 1981, the appellant, Eugene Cecil Hack, entered a U-Totem store located in Oklahoma City, and, by use of a firearm, robbed it; he was followed as he left the store by several persons, among them Jim Fields, whom the appellant shot with a shotgun; when Officer Jerry Williams stopped the fleeing vehicle, he was shot at, but not hit. Hack raises two (2) assignments of error.
As his first assignment of error, the appellant alleges that error was committed when Officer Younker testified that during his pursuit and capture Hack took a hostage.1 It is contended that the evidence was admitted contra the rule enunciated in Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okl.Cr.1979). We are of the opinion that Burks is applicable in the instant case, but not for the reason argued by the appellant. As was pointed out in the body of that opinion, those procedures “do not relieve defense attorneys of the need to object to inadmissible evidence of other crimes.” Since a proper objection was not made at trial to the introduction of the now complained of testimony, the issue has not been properly preserved for review.
As his second assignment of error, the appellant contends that the testimony of witness, Janet Stephen, in the first stage of the bifurcated proceeding, relating to a statement attributed to Hack at the crime scene,2 and that given by her in the second stage, differed markedly and was a result of “molded testimony” by the prosecuting attorney, who had advised the witness not to refer to Hack’s prior conviction in the first stage. The testimony now complained of was not objected to at trial and has thus been waived. Anderson v. State, 641 P.2d 555 (Okl.Cr.1981), and cases cited therein. Moreover, even if the issue had been properly preserved, we are of the opinion that the testimony was properly admitted in the second stage.
The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1982 OK CR 175, 654 P.2d 629, 1982 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hack-v-state-oklacrimapp-1982.