Court Opinion

ID: 9529160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:48:16.39139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:41.872785
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Justice
(concurring).
The, defendant complains of the opening statement of the prosecutor as being a most vitriolic, prejudicial, and inflammatory argument. We have examined the same and do not find it so to be.
The defendant now complains of hearsay evidence in the record, particularly as to what Mrs. Payton said her husband had told her about the cattle deal and the fact cash was required to close the transaction. No objection was made to this testimony at the trial. Some authorities hold such testimony admissible, as explanatory and for the purpose of establishing the true circumstances leading up to and surrounding the homicide. Garrett v. State, 157 Ga. 817, 122 S.E. 211.
But, assuming Mrs. Payton’s testimony was hearsay and not admissible, it was certainly harmless in light of the proof by other witnesses who heard the defendant make statements to the effect that he and Mr. Payton had a cattle deal. Such statements made by the defendant, himself, maybe proved by the person hearing him make the same. 16 C.J. 626, § 1242, Note 77; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 728, Note 52, p. 1238. Hence objection now made for the first time that Mrs. Payton’s testimony was hearsay loses its weight in face of the direct proof of the defendant’s admissions corroborating her testimony.
The defendant further objects that the county attorney paraded from the witness stand, “This defendant admits that he is an ex-convict,” finds support in the record, only because the county attorney testified the defendant voluntarily came to his office and voluntarily told him, “I am in trouble,” explaining that he was an ex-convict and since Ream Payton was missing, he' was afraid he would be accused. He complains of the county attorney’s testifying which, we believe, is without merit. The county attorney could not bind himself, under the law, not to testify to the things the defendant voluntarily related to him. To have done so would have required him to suppress material evidence *221which he' had acquired in a lawful manner and to have refused ,to testify would have constituted a clear derogation of duty. The county attorney, is not to be censured for testifying to the things the defendant voluntarily related to him on his voluntary visit to the county attorney’s office. It is well to observe that this evidence, as to the defendant’s admission made to the county attorney, stands uncontradicted, since the defendant did not elect to testify in his own behalf. Not only is this true, but after the disappearance of Mr. Payton, the defendant told so many conflicting stories, (as set forth in the opinion by Judge Powell) to so many people, in his endeavor to divert and allay suspicion, that it became apparent he was attempting to divert attention from himself. The false nature of his attempts is clearly apparent when measured in terms of his voluntarily written and signed confession.
Judge Powell has set forth the overwhelming proof of guilt, in this case, in a most meticulous and detailed manner. Summarized, the evidence and logical inferences disclose:
(1) That Bob Hendricks and Ream Pay-ton were friends and had business dealings together.
(2) The defendant was employed at the stock exchange in Vinita, as a night watchman, at a salary of $35 per week and resided in a room in the old exchange building on the back end of the sale ring lot, 230 feet back of the office.
(3) On August 14, 1954, the defendant, accompanied by a man, apparently Payton, appeared at Helen Pless’ place, near Grove, Oklahoma, and looked around the place. Later, Mrs. Hess rebuked the defendant for trying to sell her cattle.
(4) The defendant told others of a proposed cattle deal with Mr. Payton.
(5) On August 21, 1954, Mr. Payton went to Vinita to close the deal for the cattle, where, at the First National Bank, shortly before 12:00 A.M., he cashed a check for $2,200, stating the people selling wanted cash so it could be .divided between them. The check contained a notation, inserted at the banker’s suggestion, “For 25 cows and 14 calves, from Kiss or Hess.”
(6) Ream Payton was last seen when he was on his way from the bank to the stock exchange, but was never seen alive after-wards. .
(7) The defendant was observed around the stock exchange premises Saturday afternoon, August 21, 1954, about 12:15 and about 1:30 or 2:00 P.M. When he was asked if he had seen Mr. Payton, he replied that Mr. Payton had gone to Pawhus-ka to attend a sale. Later, the defendant told others that Mr. Payton was supposed to come to the exchange, that they were going to buy cattle, but Mr. Payton did not show up.
(8) Mr. Payton’s truck was thereafter observed parked in front of the old exchange building and later behind the old building. Finally it was parked near the Cobb Hotel. On the 22nd of August, it became generally known that Mr. Payton was missing.
(9) Bob Hendricks suddenly became a man of affluence, after Payton’s disappearance, purchasing new clothes and paying off the mortgage on his car and stating that he had purchased a farm near Grove, Oklahoma.
(10) Tuesday, he told Mr. Clanton, a cafe owner, that he would lose the farm if he couldn’t borrow $1,500 to save it. He related he had some whiskey money, but he couldn’t afford to use it, being on parole. Wednesday, Hendricks gave Mr. Clanton $1,500 in $100 bills as security so that Clan-ton could borrow the money, and asked Clanton if he had heard anything from Mr. Payton; he appeared to be very nervous. After Payton’s body was found on Friday, Clanton delivered the $1,500 to the sheriff.
(11) Where Mr. Payton’s body was found, near the old Cherokee Supper Club, was a vicinity familiar to Hendricks.
(12) Ream Payton’s body was identified by his .brother and his long-time friend, Frank Ross.
(13) When-the defendant was contacted again about Mr. Payton’s whereabouts, he told numerous conflicting stories.
*222(14) On August 23, Hendricks was observed scrubbing out his room in the old exchange building with a disinfectant.
(15) A search of Mr. Payton’s pickup disclosed, under the seat, an iron tire tool that had blood on it and this tire tool fit the hole in the back of Mr. Payton’s head.
(16) On August 27, 1954, an examination of Hendricks’ quarters confirmed that it had recently been scrubbed, and disclosed blood on the floor around where the desk had sat, blood that had run down the end of the desk, and blood spattered on the chair, stove, and a pair of boots therein. It appears the defendant struck Payton from behind with the tire tool while he was seated at the desk.
(17) Samples of the blood were examined and found to be type “A” blood, the same as Payton’s. The defendant never took the stand to account for this human blood, or attempted to explain his actions in scrubbing out the room at this particular time.
(18) The defendant stayed up all night, the night of Mr. Payton’s disappearance. He was seen about 2:35 A.M. dressed in a shirt that was ripped down the back, and thereafter appeared about 5:00 or 6:00 with a change of clothes.
(19) On August 25, the defendant, Hendricks, voluntarily went to the county attorney’s office and pointed the finger of suspicion at himself by his statements, his demeanor, and his conduct.
(20) On the night of August 30, 1954, while in jail, Hendricks attempted suicide by slashing his arms and putting himself under the influence of a drug. Prior thereto, he had obtained some letterhead stationery from Sheriff Ince, and left a written confession on his bunk.
(21) In open court, in his presence, a stipulation was made, admitting the confession was in his handwriting, wherein the defendant said, “There was no one in on the Payton death, but me.”
The foregoing facts, and many others as set forth in Judge Powell’s exhaustive opinion, presented to the jury a chain of circumstance, direct evidence, and confession of guilt, all standing undenied and un-repudiated by the defendant. The jury could have reached no other conclusion than that of his guilt. It appears the defendant was accorded his constitutional and statutory rights.