Gonzales v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Craft v. State

    744 P.2d 210 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    However, an instruction must be read in its entirety to determine if it properly places the question of fact before the jury. Gonzales v. State, 480 P.2d 930, 937 (Okla. Cr. 1970). Instructions to be given the jury are within the discretion of the trial court, and that judgment will not be disturbed as long as the instructions, taken as a whole, state the applicable law fairly and accurately.

  2. Hicks v. State

    583 P.2d 1117 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    To the contrary, the evidence was uncontradicted that the officers merely advised her to "look carefully at each photograph in the tray, all of the photos in the tray, not to try to make any decision until she had looked at all of them and then [to] show [the officers] what she believed if the photo of her attacker were there." Because of the short time factors between the commission of the offense and the number of photographs shown to the prosecutrix and her unequivocal, unsolicited identification of the defendant at each display, we conclude that the preidentification procedure was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See, Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930 (1970), and Powell v. State, Okla. Cr. 478 P.2d 923 (1970). Defendant urges in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in orally instructing the jury after the case had been submitted for determination and before the verdict had been returned.

  3. Slavens v. State

    559 P.2d 1258 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 3 times
    Finding independent evidence of guilt rendered allegedly erroneous identification testimony harmless

    During the trial, Ms. Burnham was examined and extensively cross-examined by counsel for defense and she was unwavering in her statement that the in-court identification was based on her observing him at the scene. Here, as in Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930 (1970), the evidence convinces us that the courtroom identification was made as a result of observation of the defendant at the scene rather than on the basis of a photograph shown to her at a later date, and that the procedure employed was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. We, accordingly, find this assignment of error to be without merit. Assuming that the courtroom identification had been made in violation of the rule enunciated in Simmons, the evidence, independent of such identification, was sufficient to treat the in-court identification as harmless error under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) and Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972).

  4. Marr v. State

    558 P.2d 1176 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977)

    Based upon the witness' unequivocal identification of the defendant on each occasion, we are of the opinion that the photographic identification procedure and the showup were not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930 (1972). We, therefore, find this assignment of error to be without merit.

  5. Turner v. State

    542 P.2d 955 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Under the totality of the circumstances here presented we are therefore persuaded that the identification was reliable even though the viewing of the pictures was suggestive. See, Neil v. Biggers, supra, Mallard v. State, Okla. Cr. 490 P.2d 1383 (1971), cert. denied 409 U.S. 912, 93 S.Ct. 239, 34 L.Ed.2d 173; and, Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930 (1970). In support of this proposition the defendants cite Willis v. State, Okla. Cr. 482 P.2d 623 (1971), however, that case is readily distinguishable for the reason that the record there indicated that the in court identifications were the result of the witnesses being shown a photograph of the defendant prior to trial.

  6. Daniels v. State

    532 P.2d 1392 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    Absent an objection and a timely request for an evidentiary hearing, we are of the opinion that this proposition is improperly before this Court. See, Anthamatten v. State, Okla. Cr. 506 P.2d 959 (1973), Bridgeman v. State, Okla. Cr. 496 P.2d 431 (1972) and Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930 (1970). Finding no error sufficient to warrant reversal or modification, it is our opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

  7. Stidham v. State

    507 P.2d 1312 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 36 times
    In Stidham v. State, 507 P.2d 1312 (Okla. Cr. 1973), this Court, in addressing an identical argument, stated that the burden is on the accused to establish prejudice by reason of the delay in taking him before a magistrate, in addition to the delay itself.

    When the evidence shows, as it does here, that the in-court identification was based on independent recollection and that the photographic procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, then the in-court identification is properly admitted. Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930; Powell v. State, Okla. Cr. 478 P.2d 923; see also 39 A.L.R.3d 100. VIII

  8. Anthamatten v. State

    506 P.2d 959 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 10 times
    In Anthamatten v. State, Okla. Cr. 506 P.2d 959, this Court citing Bridgeman v. State, Okla. Cr. 496 P.2d 431, held that the issue of a tainted in-court identification was improperly before the Court when it was apparent from the record that the defendant failed to make a timely objection at trial to the in-court identification and had failed to make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing.

    " See also Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930. Although this proposition is improperly before this Court, we observe that the identifications were not so tainted as to render them inadmissible and that the identifications were made in fact from an independent origin.

  9. Wilson v. State

    480 P.2d 938 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970)

    BUSSEY, Judge. This is a companion case of Gonzales v. State, Okla. Cr. 480 P.2d 930, decided this date, and since Norman Wayne Wilson and Dan Don Gonzales were jointly charged, tried and convicted, and the identical issues were raised on appeal, including the pro se briefs of both Wilson and Gonzales, we adopt and incorporate by reference the opinion rendered in Gonzales v. State, supra. For the reasons therein stated, the judgment and sentence of fifty (50) years imprisonment in the state penitentiary is modified to a term of forty (40) years imprisonment in the state penitentiary, and as so modified, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.