Court Opinion

ID: 9625670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:47:12.385616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:13.024208
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) :
I concur that this conviction should be reversed and remanded, but I must respectfully dissent to that part which affirms the conviction. I believe the defendant abandoned any intent to complete the crime.
Also, I disagree with the statement in the majority opinion which recites:
“The defendants were standing together outside the bank awaiting the delivery of money, which was not delivered because of the intervention of the police officer.”
With reference to the actions of Mrs. Price and defendant, Officer Greeson testified :
“They left the coffee shop on the inside of the Fidelity National Bank. . . . They came into the — up to the information desk and stood there for a second and turned around and walked back out —went back out on the Harvey Street side and came around to the front of the bank.”
He was then asked, “Then what did they do?” He replied, “They talked for a few minutes and Mrs. Price came into the bank and Mrs. Castor walked on down the street east of the Fidelity National Bank.”
Defendant was arrested about a block from the bank. Mrs. Price’s testimony is not precise as to exactly who was to take her money, indicating “them” or some unidentified lawyer. It appears Mrs. Price tried to get defendant to go with her to the bank teller’s window for the money, but defendant did not and left Mrs. Price outside the bank. Mrs. Price did not know where defendant was going and had no instructions for surrendering the money to another party.
Even assuming a fraudulent larceny scheme, the purported crime had not sufficiently developed or was voluntarily abandoned in its early stage without any intervening foreign influences. Nor can it be said that it became impossible to carry out the scheme, prior to the moment the defendant abandoned the attempt. There was no irrevocable act by defendant toward the accomplishment of the crime; an unlawful intent coupled with futile gestures does not constitute a crime. Neme-cek v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 195, 114 P.2d 492 (1941).
Therefore, I must respectfully dissent to the results of this decision, which affirms the conviction.