Martin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Martin v. State

1971 OK CR 259, 487 P.2d 1179

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 21, 1971

DocketA-15465

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 259 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 1971 OK CR 259, 487 P.2d 1179 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Edward L. Martin, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Okmulgee County for the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor; his punishment was fixed at ten days imprisonment in the county jail, and a fine of $100.00 and costs.

This case must be reversed for the reason that the State, in the opening statement, referred to the fact that the defendant refused to sign a Consent to Take a Blood Test. The arresting officer testified, on direct examination, that the defendant refused to sign the Consent for Blood Test, and further, refused to sign an affidavit that he refused the test. Defense counsel properly objected at the first mention of refusing the blood test in the opening statement, and timely objected to this line of questioning on direct examination. We have previously held that permitting evidence in chief over objection, that the defendant had refused to take a sobriety test, is prejudicial error, and is reversible on re *1180 view. Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 920 (1964). See also Simmons v. State, Okl.Cr., 485 P.2d 489.

The cause is accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial. The District Attorney should consider filing an amended Information setting forth a clearer description of the route on which the defendant is alleged to have been operating his motor vehicle.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Edward L. Martin, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Okmulgee County for the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor; his punishment was fixed at ten days imprisonment in the county jail, and a fine of $100.00 and costs.

This case must be reversed for the reason that the State, in the opening statement, referred to the fact that the defendant refused to sign a Consent to Take a Blood Test. The arresting officer testified, on direct examination, that the defendant refused to sign the Consent for Blood Test, and further, refused to sign an affidavit that he refused the test. Defense counsel properly objected at the first mention of refusing the blood test in the opening statement, and timely objected to this line of questioning on direct examination. We have previously held that permitting evidence in chief over objection, that the defendant had refused to take a sobriety test, is prejudicial error, and is reversible on re *1180 view. Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 920 (1964). See also Simmons v. State, Okl.Cr., 485 P.2d 489.

The cause is accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial. The District Attorney should consider filing an amended Information setting forth a clearer description of the route on which the defendant is alleged to have been operating his motor vehicle.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 259, 487 P.2d 1179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack