Court Opinion

ID: 9528986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:46:00.035614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:34.403432
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge
(dissents):
I respectfully dissent to this decision, because I believe the trial court committed error when defendant’s Exhibit 17 was not admitted into evidence and because the jury was not fully instructed.
The purpose of the exhibit was to show the jury that the alleged offense was not any more than a misdemeanor offense; and that the officers were on defendant’s property without proper authority, beyond their general authority to investigate an alleged incident.
The Attorney General argues that the municipal ordinance, offered as defendant’s Exhibit No. 17, was irrelevant and immaterial to the issues of the trial; and notwithstanding the provisions of 12 O.S.1971, § 493, the Marlow City Ordinance was inadmissible in evidence. Section 493 provides :
“Printed copies of any of the ordinances, of any city or incorporated town in this State, purporting to be published by the authority of such city or incorporated town or manuscript copies of the same, certified under the hand of the proper officer, and having the corporate seal of such city or town affixed thereto shall be received as evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)
The theory of defense was that the police officers were trespassers at defendant’s home, insofar as no complaint had been signed and no warrant issued; therefore, the officers being trespassers, defendant was not obligated to submit to an illegal arrest, and possessed a right to resist such illegal arrest in self-defense of himself and his wife.
*987When defendant offered his Exhibit No. 17, the State objected, but offered no reasons for the objection; nonetheless, the court summarily sustained the State’s objection. So, defendant proffered into evidence the ordinance, which proffer was denied allowing defendant his exceptions.
The ordinance was the basis for defendant’s theory of defense; and it served as the predicate for the officer’s presence at defendant’s home. When this fact is considered along with the court’s second instruction, it becomes clear to me that the jury was not properly instructed.
The court’s instruction number two provided the following:
“You are instructed that the laws of the State of Oklahoma provide as follows :
‘Every person who intentionally and wrongfully shoots, shoots at, or attempts to shoot at another, with any kind of firearem [sic], airgun or other means whatever, with intent to kill any person, or who commits any assault and battery upon another by means of any deadly weapon, or by such other means or force as is likely to produce death, or in any manner attempts to kill another, or in resisting the execution of any legal process, is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding twenty (20) years.’ ” (Emphasis supplied)
Notwithstanding the fact that the court’s instruction was generally correct, as stating essentially what the statute recites, none of the instructions informed the jury that the officers were making inquiry was one of the nature which required the issuance of a warrant, premised upon a signed complaint; and, notwithstanding the fact that the officers may have the right to investigate reports or disturbances without a warrant being issued, their authority is limited to making inquiry in misdemeanor or municipal offenses, unless the offense was committed in their presence. In the instant case, the offense was admittedly not committed in the officers’ presence; and they both testified that no complaint had been signed, and no warrant had been issued. When Mrs. Cooper informed the two officers that the defendant did not want to talk to them, the officers should have done what they threatened to do— withdraw and obtain a warrant for defendant’s arrest.
The court’s instruction number two informed the jury in such a manner as to leave the impression that the officers were executing legal process, and that defendant was “resisting the execution of legal process” ; and that the officers were completely in the right. That was not the case. When the officers were informed that the defendant did not want to talk to them, the officer’s authority ceased, absent the warrant. I therefore conclude that the jury instructions were improper, insofar as defendant’s theory of defense was not clearly offered for the jury’s consideration.
In Jones v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 285, 141 P. 2d 109 (1943), this Court recited:
“The law is well settled that instructions given to a jury must be adapted to the evidence and circumstances of the case on trial. To give instructions,, even though they contain a correct statement of abstract legal principles, which are prejudicial will warrant a reversal of a judgment of conviction, and constitutes error.” At page 117 of 141 P.2d.
⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅝ ⅝
“Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense. Where it appears and justice requires, this court will consider it whether or not exceptions are taken in the court below or whether or not it be assigned as error on appeal.” At page 118 of 141 P.2d.
I therefore take the position that defendant did not receive such a trial as due process of law requires; and therefore, this conviction should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent.