Lay v. State
Lay v. State
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Appellant, Charles Lynn Lay, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried by jury and convicted of the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in Case No. CRF-75-27, in District Court, Logan County, Oklahoma. He was sentenced to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment and appeals.
Doug Allen testified he was driving past Pinebrook Apartments between 10:00 a. m. and 12:00 a. m. on the day in question when he noticed suspicious behavior from two persons standing near apartment No. 2 (Dr. Thomas’ apartment). As they sped away in a light green Chevelle he wrote down their license number, XR-1110, the same as defendant’s car, and then notified the police.
Alongside the highway near defendant’s car, police found other items later identified as belonging to Dr. Thomas.
In his only assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Trooper Tribble, because he questioned the defendant prior to reading him the Miranda rights. The defendant argues that the entirety of Trooper Tribble’s testimony thus becomes inadmissible as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602,16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). We do not find this assignment of error to be supported by the facts of this case.
The defendant was arrested on a valid charge of reckless driving, and was issued a citation. The officers saw “in plain view” (State v. Baxter, Okl.Cr., 528 P.2d 347 [1974]) the altered 1975 Oklahoma license plate,
Defendant, in a separate pro se brief filed with this Court, argues that the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), must apply. But Brown involved an unlawful arrest and incriminating statements by the defendant once he was in custody. Neither occurred in the case at bar.
For the above reasons we dismiss defendant’s sole assignment of error and find that
.The car was crossing the center line and traveling at a high rate of speed, "He liked to run over me," testified Trooper S. T. Boulding who was driving toward the defendant.
.Altered in violation of 47 O.S.1971, § 4-110(2); the defendant’s car already carried a valid 1975 tag.
.According to Highway Patrol procedure.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.