ANDERSON v. STATE

ANDERSON v. STATE
1982 OK CR 28
641 P.2d 555
Case Number: F-79-717
Decided: 02/25/1982
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

An appeal from the District Court of Okfuskee County; Jess I. Miracle, District Judge.

Doyle Wayne Anderson, appellant, was convicted of Attempting to Bribe a Police Officer, in Okfuskee County District Court, Case No. CRF-78-7, was sentenced to two and one-half (2 1/2) years' imprisonment, and he appeals. AFFIRMED.

R.W. "Bud" Byars, Tulsa, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., David W. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Crim. Div., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

¶1 The appellant, Doyle Wayne Anderson, was convicted of Attempting to Bribe a Police Officer, in Okfuskee County District Court, Case No. CRF-78-7, was sentenced to two and one-half (2 1/2) years' imprisonment, and he appeals.

[641 P.2d 556]

¶2 The appellant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing evidentiary harpoons and evidence of other crimes into evidence. However, he has not properly preserved these issues for our review.

¶3 He has not specified any examples of evidentiary harpoons in his brief, and a careful review of the record fails to reveal any evidentiary harpoons.

¶4

¶5 Furthermore, the appellant failed to raise any of the propositions that he now argues as errors in his motion for new trial. We have held on numerous occasions that only assignments of error presented in the motion for new trial will be considered on appeal unless such error complained of is fundamental. Hawkins v. State, 569 P.2d 490 (Okl.Cr. 1977).

¶6 For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence appealed from is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH, J., concurs.

BRETT, P.J., concurs in results.

Footnotes:

1 In Robinson v. State, 507 P.2d 1296 (Okl.Cr. 1973) this Court, quoting from Wright v. State, 325 P.2d 1089 (Okl.Cr. 1958) defined the term "evidentiary harpoon" as follows: "An evidentiary harpoon is that which has been willfully jabbed into the defendant and then jerked out by an admonition to the jury not to consider the same."

2 The record reveals the following colloquy:

MR. REEVES: If Your Honor please, we'd like to object and continue objecting to this testimony. It's irrelevant to the information that's been filed with this Court and it has nothing to do with bribing a police officer.

THE COURT: I don't know, it may, if you look it up.

MR. RAHHAL: It states in there while the bribe was offered.

THE COURT: Just don't volunteer anything. Go ahead. He's overruled.

From the foregoing it is clear that the judge did not grant a continuing objection.

3 The record reveals the following:

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

COMES NOW the Defendant and moves this court to grant him a new trial.