Simmons v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Simmons v. State

1971 OK CR 217, 485 P.2d 489

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 12, 1971

DocketA-16396

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 217 (Simmons 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

Simmons v. State, 1971 OK CR 217, 485 P.2d 489 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Andrew T. Simmons, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County of the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, After Former Conviction of a Felony; his pun *490 ishment was fixed at five (5) years’ imprisonment in the state penitentiary and a fine of $1.00 and from said Judgment and Sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Briefly stated the evidence at the trial adduced that on February 10, 1970, Trooper Lindley first observed the defendant at approximately 8:30 P.M. when he stopped him for speeding. He testified that the defendant had been drinking but was not under the influence. Approximately one hour later he observed the defendant driving his automobile in an erratic manner, weaving back and forth between three traffic lanes. He stopped the vehicle and it appeared that the defendant was more noticeably unstable on his feet, his speech was more slurred, and the odor of alcohol was stronger. He was of the opinion that the defendant was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. He advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and the consequences of refusing breath or blood tests. The defendant refused both tests.

The defendant’s mother and father testified that the defendant had been to their house shortly after receiving the traffic ticket and he was not drunk. They were called to the scene of the arrest by the highway patrolman to take charge of defendant’s daughter, and in their opinion he was not drunk.

The sole proposition asserts that the jury’s verdict of five (5) years imprisonment and a one ($1.00) dollar fine is harsh and excessive for the reason that the same was the direct result of and was influenced by passion or prejudice. We are of the opinion that this proposition is well taken. The arresting officer testified on direct examination that the defendant refused to take a blood or breath test. We have previously held that permitting evidence in chief, over objection, that defendant had refused to take sobriety test is prejudicial error and is reversible on review. Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 920 (1964). The defendant did not object to the testimony and thus does not require reversal. The record further reveals that the arresting officer again on direct examination testified that the defendant told him that he was under probation. The defendant promptly objected and requested a mistrial. The Court denied the motion for mistrial and admonished the jury to disregard the statement. We are of the opinion that the answer constituted an “evidentiary harpoon” condemned by this Court time after time. Green v. State, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 805 (1971).

We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. We can arrive at no other conclusion than that the improper testimony of the arresting officer prejudiced the defendant with the jury and the justice would be best served by modifying the judgment and sentence to a term of two and one-half years imprisonment and a fine of $1.00 and as so modified the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Andrew T. Simmons, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County of the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, After Former Conviction of a Felony; his pun *490 ishment was fixed at five (5) years’ imprisonment in the state penitentiary and a fine of $1.00 and from said Judgment and Sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Briefly stated the evidence at the trial adduced that on February 10, 1970, Trooper Lindley first observed the defendant at approximately 8:30 P.M. when he stopped him for speeding. He testified that the defendant had been drinking but was not under the influence. Approximately one hour later he observed the defendant driving his automobile in an erratic manner, weaving back and forth between three traffic lanes. He stopped the vehicle and it appeared that the defendant was more noticeably unstable on his feet, his speech was more slurred, and the odor of alcohol was stronger. He was of the opinion that the defendant was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. He advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and the consequences of refusing breath or blood tests. The defendant refused both tests.

The defendant’s mother and father testified that the defendant had been to their house shortly after receiving the traffic ticket and he was not drunk. They were called to the scene of the arrest by the highway patrolman to take charge of defendant’s daughter, and in their opinion he was not drunk.

The sole proposition asserts that the jury’s verdict of five (5) years imprisonment and a one ($1.00) dollar fine is harsh and excessive for the reason that the same was the direct result of and was influenced by passion or prejudice. We are of the opinion that this proposition is well taken. The arresting officer testified on direct examination that the defendant refused to take a blood or breath test. We have previously held that permitting evidence in chief, over objection, that defendant had refused to take sobriety test is prejudicial error and is reversible on review. Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 920 (1964). The defendant did not object to the testimony and thus does not require reversal. The record further reveals that the arresting officer again on direct examination testified that the defendant told him that he was under probation. The defendant promptly objected and requested a mistrial. The Court denied the motion for mistrial and admonished the jury to disregard the statement. We are of the opinion that the answer constituted an “evidentiary harpoon” condemned by this Court time after time. Green v. State, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 805 (1971).

We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. We can arrive at no other conclusion than that the improper testimony of the arresting officer prejudiced the defendant with the jury and the justice would be best served by modifying the judgment and sentence to a term of two and one-half years imprisonment and a fine of $1.00 and as so modified the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 217, 485 P.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-state-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack