# Mayes v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · August 4, 1994 · 65 O.B.A.J. 2808

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541965

## Case

- **Full name:** William Raymond MAYES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 4, 1994
- **Citations:** 65 O.B.A.J. 2808; 887 P.2d 1288; 1994 OK CR 44; 1994 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 58; 1994 WL 282985
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lane
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Johnson, Lane, Chapel, Strubhar
- **Cited by:** 121 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541965

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no fundamental error where an EMT testified that “[w]hen he loaded the body between 9:30 and 10 p.m., rigor had begun; and the body exhibited substantially more lividity, and was colder than it had been six hours earlier”
- holding it is not error for the trial court to refuse to define life imprisonment without the possibility of parole

## Opinion text

LANE, Judge,
concurring in result.
I disagree with the majority in two respects. First, I cannot adopt the position of the majority that by testifying the appellant automatically changed the standard of review to be used by this Court. In the case relied on by the majority, Lowrey v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 313 , 197 P.2d 637 (1948), the defendant took the stand and testified as to what was supposed to be the facts. This provided the “direct evidence” relied upon by this Court. In the present matter, the defendant took the stand, but his testimony does not contain any purported evidence as to what occurred when the crime was committed. He simply testified that he was not there. It is my opinion that before Loivrey can be relied upon, testimony or evidence submitted by the defendant must contain direct evidence.
However, I do not think this disagreement changes the outcome of the case. My examination of the facts causes me to find that even when the wholly circumstantial evidence standard is used there is sufficient evidence to justify the jury finding the appellant guilty.
Second, I agree with Judge Chapel that the evidence of the settlement concerning the insurance money should not have been admitted against the appellant. Appellant was not a party to the agreement, and it does not reflect an admission against interest by him. However, I do not think that the prejudice created thereby was sufficient to cause a reversal of the conviction.
I therefore concur in result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541965. Public record. Not legal advice.