Oxendine v. State

1960 OK CR 26, 350 P.2d 606, 1960 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 16, 1960
DocketA-12800
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 1960 OK CR 26 (Oxendine 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
Oxendine v. State, 1960 OK CR 26, 350 P.2d 606, 1960 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Okla. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Eddie Oxendine, alias Don Locklear, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, and James Spence, were charged jointly in the district court of Comanche County with the murder of Ruth Zimmerman, by shooting.

The parties were first tried together, convicted and punishment assessed at death. The State produced ample evidence, in addition to the written and verbal confessions of the defendants showing that they killed the deceased in the process of a robbery, and that the deceased was tied and gagged at the time she was killed by defendants in an apparent attempt to prevent detection and identification, to sustain the conviction, Truly the evidence disclosed a cruel and wanton murder and was amply sufficient to support the extreme penalty assessed.

Nevertheless, this Court felt compelled to send the case back for a new trial. This because there was received in evidence certain pictures of the deceased that were prejudicial in the form presented. The pictures were not limited to the area of the body showing points of entry of bullets and point of egress of one bullet, but showed the entire nude body of a young woman multilated by an extensive autopsy. Such pictures in the form received were shocking, and this Court concluded such might, in spite of the uncontroverted evidence of guilt, have accounted for the assessment of the extreme penalty. See Oxendine v. State, Okl.Cr., 335 P.2d 940.

While the members of this Court, regardless of any personal views as to the policy of a State making legal the exacting of a person’s life as punishment for crime, may not, as a court, question the fact of the plain and unambiguous statute, 21 O.S. 1951 §§ 701, 707, 1 it is binding on this Court. But it is the solemn duty of each member to satisfy his conscience that persons who receive the penalty of death at tha hands of a judge or jury, however guilty such persons may appear to be, have been afforded due process of law and that they received a fair and impartial trial.

The court-appointed attorneys strove valiantly. A second trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial. Then each defendant moved for a severance, which was granted. *609 Defendant Oxendine was tried separately in the district court of Comanche County, was found guilty of murder by the jury, and his punishment fixed at death. Spence obtained a change of venue to Cotton County, where he was likewise convicted and his punishment was fixed at death. An appeal for Spence is currently before this Court.

At the trial of Oxendine, commencing on May 13, 1959 and ending May 15, 1959, the State used fifteen witnesses. The sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned. The plea of counsel is for mercy, and objection to four instructions given by the court to the jury. The Attorney General dismisses these claims of error with one paragraph, but we shall briefly summarize the evidence sufficient for an understanding of the propositions advanced and then treat each proposition in order presented.

The undisputed evidence discloses that Reggie N. Zimmerman and Ruth Zimmerman, his wife with their four months baby, were living in an apartment above a war-surplus store near Lawton. Reggie was assistant manager of the surplus store.

About 9 p. m. on the night of the alleged murder, Mr. Zimmerman, after closing the store, climbed the outside stairs which led to his apartment where his family was waiting. The defendant Oxendine, accompanied by one Spence, each armed with an automatic pistol, was passing by and saw Mr. Zimmerman going up the stairs with a sack in his hand. They consulted and decided that he was carrying money, recounted that they were getting low on funds, and agreed to rob Mr. Zimmerman.

The defendant Oxendine, after climbing the stairs, tricked Zimmerman into opening the door of his apartment by telling him that he had a flat tire and wanted to borrow a jack; then, at pistol point forced his way into the apartment. Spence then entered and forced Zimmerman to go downstairs with Oxendine and open the surplus store safe, Spence remaining with Mrs. Zimmerman. Oxendine had a pistol at Zimmerman’s back during this time. After Oxen-dine and Zimmerman returned to the upstairs apartment, Zimmerman testified that the following took place:

“Oxendine goes over toward the kitchen wall and he comes back and he tells me to lay face down on the floor, so I laid down on the floor. He tied me up, put a gag in my mouth and Spence tells him to take me to the closet; and my wife spoke up about that time and said, ‘Why can’t you go on and leave us alone? I’ve got a baby to tend to here through the night.’ Spence spoke up and said, ‘they can’t identify us this way, and go ahead and put them in the closet.’ Oxendine put me in the closet, closed the door and went back to the kitchen, brung my wife back to the closet. She was tied and gagged also. He shut the door. I heard footsteps, thought they were leaving. About that time they stopped and I heard them talking. I couldn’t understand what they was saying. About that time the closet door came open and the white guy [Spence] was standing there shooting. I didn’t know at that time how many shots was fired. As soon as they quit firing I jumped up and run to where the baby was. There wasn’t nobody there. I turned around. My wife had fell to her knees. I run to her and she just groaned and fell over on the floor.”

The evidence further shows that Spence emptied his pistol at the prostrate forms, hitting the husband three times, and the wife twice. One bullet penetrated the 19-year old wife’s heart and she died quickly. Zimmerman said that Oxendine was the one who opened the door to the closet, while Spence fired.

Although gagged and with his hands tied, Zimmerman made his way to a neighbor, a policeman, who got word to the other officers, and an ambulance was ordered.

Mr. Zimmerman had described his assailants to the officers and had told them that he had observed a black Pontiac car, apparently a 1950 or 1951 model. The officers *610 started looking for persons fitting the descriptions given, and many officers began searching Lawton for black Pontiac cars, and checking them, and tracing ownership.

Ernest Lovett of the State Bureau of Investigation saw a Pontiac car fitting the description given by Mr. Zimmerman with a North Carolina tag MTO 586 parked in an alley between “E” and “F” and between Fifth and Sixth Streets on the south side of the alley. Early the next morning they received information from North Carolina that the car was registered in the name of James Spence, of Deep River, North Carolina. The officers then checked the apartment houses near where they had seen the car, and found that one James Spence and Eddie Oxendine had rented an apartment at 523½ F Street on March 25, and had paid $80 in advance for a month’s rent.

The officers searched this apartment on the morning of April 1, 1958, following the murder on March 31, 1958, and found it abandoned. They found in the attic a pillow case that contained the keys to the surplus store. Oxendine and party were apprehended at A M Motor Court at Albuquerque, New Mexico on the morning of April 4, 1958. Defendant gave the New Mexico officers a complete written confession and later repeated his confession to Oklahoma officers.

M. T.

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

Related

State v. Jones
1993 OK CR 36 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1993)
Johnson v. State
1986 OK CR 134 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1986)
DeVooght v. State
1986 OK CR 100 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1986)
Hatch v. State
1983 OK CR 47 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1983)
Irvin v. State
1980 OK CR 70 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1980)
Hays v. State
1980 OK CR 66 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1980)
Faubion v. State
1977 OK CR 302 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1977)
Clark v. State
1977 OK CR 4 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1977)
Bell v. State
1974 OK CR 188 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1974)
Tilford v. Page
307 F. Supp. 781 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1969)
Lewis v. Oklahoma
304 F. Supp. 116 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1969)
Henderson v. State
1963 OK CR 68 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1960 OK CR 26, 350 P.2d 606, 1960 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxendine-v-state-oklacrimapp-1960.