Simpson v. State
This text of 1983 OK CR 158 (Simpson 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
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The appellant, Dennis Ray Simpson, was convicted in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-81-4453, of Robbery by Fear and was sentenced to five (5) years’ imprisonment from which he appeals.
Since this case must be reversed and remanded, we will address only the appellant’s last assignment of error in which, by overruling his motion to quash, suppress and strike his purported in-custodial confession, the trial court committed reversible error.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was arrested late on the night of December 18, 1981, by Officers Arrington and Day of the Tulsa Police Department. Simpson, intoxicated at the time of his arrest and during interrogation, signed a Certificate of Notification of Rights and then refused to speak, testifying, “I told them that I wouldn’t give them any statements, I would like to have my attorney present and, um, they go mad, threw me — didn’t throw me, but said — told me to get out of the room and I went to the next room.” (Tr. 37) Upon moving to another room, the appellant’s uncontroverted testimony is that at that time, he phoned his attorney. Later, knowing that Simpson had invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, the detectives again subjected him to interrogation, whereupon he signed another waiver and a confession was obtained.1
In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), a similar [304]*304fact situation as the present, the Supreme Court held that “an accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through his counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communications, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” The record before us reflects the appellant did, in fact, request an attorney, the interrogation ceased and' then he was called back again without first receiving counsel.2 In light of the foregoing, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.
APPENDIX
Simpson’s testimony regarding events following his first interrogation by detectives:
Q. Okay. Did anybody talk to you after that? (n. 2)
A. Yes, he did. It was — I don’t know, a couple of hours, I don’t know. I was about-to go to sleep and they called me back in.
Q. Okay. Dennis, when they talked to you that time, the second and third times, did you ever tell anybody you wanted an attorney?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What happened?
A. They told me that, um — not to — told me it was my last chance, that they were — it was my last chance to cooperate with them. And of course, I — you know, I was scared.
Q. Had you tried to get in touch with an attorney before that?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you do that?
A. One of the detectives let me call. (Tr. 37, 38)
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. After you tried to call me, Dennis, did you then come back and talk with one of the detectives?
Q. Did you give him a statement implicating yourself at that time?
A. Yes. (Tr. 38)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1983 OK CR 158, 672 P.2d 303, 1983 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1983.