Edward Allen Rayls v The State of Oklahoma

M-2003-450

Filed: May 19, 2004

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Edward Allen Rayls

Summary

# Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. Conviction and sentence were reversed and dismissed. Judge Lumpkin dissented. In this case, Edward Allen Rayls was found guilty of trying to escape from a police officer. After a jury trial, he was fined $2,000 and given 30 days in jail. Rayls argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. He also said that the court made mistakes by not allowing a key 911 call recording to be used in his defense and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The appeals court decided that Rayls was right. They said there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he was actually trying to elude the officer. Even though he didn't stop right away, he wasn't speeding or breaking any traffic laws. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction and instructed that it be dismissed. Judge Lumpkin disagreed with this decision. He believed that the jury had enough evidence to find Rayls guilty, and that their decision should be respected.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Judgment and Sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CM-2002-3759 is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. IT IS so ORDERED.

Issues

• was there insufficient evidence to support a conviction of Attempting to Elude a Police Officer?
• did the trial court commit reversible error by suppressing the 911 audiotape that had relevant and probative impeachment evidence?
• did the prosecutor engage in improper and highly prejudicial argument in violation of the defendant's right to a fundamentally fair trial?

Findings

• the court erred
• the court did not address remaining propositions

M-2003-450

May 19, 2004

Edward Allen Rayls

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

In the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CM-2002-3759, Appellant, following a jury trial, was found guilty of Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. On April 17, 2003, the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, Special Judge, pursuant to the jury’s sentencing verdict, sentenced Appellant to a $2,000.00 fine and to thirty (30) days in the county jail. Appellant now appeals this Judgment and Sentence and raises the following propositions of error:

Proposition I
The State presented insufficient evidence to support a conviction of Attempting to Elude a Police Officer.

Proposition II
The trial court committed reversible error by suppressing the 911 audiotape that had relevant and probative impeachment evidence regarding the police officer’s demeanor at the time he pulled Mr. Rayls over.

Proposition III
The prosecutor engaged in improper and highly prejudicial argument in violation of Mr. Rayls right to a fundamentally fair trial in violation of the federal and state constitutions.

After thoroughly considering the entire record before the Court, including the original record, transcript, and briefs, the Court FINDS Appellant’s Proposition I has merit and requires Appellant’s matter be reversed with instructions to dismiss. As the Court finds Appellant’s Proposition I to be determinative, the Court does not decide those errors raised in Appellant’s remaining two propositions.

The statute defining the offense of Attempting to Elude a Police Officer reads, in relevant part, as follows:
A. Any operator of a motor vehicle who has received a visual and audible signal, a red light and a siren from a peace officer driving a motor vehicle showing the same to be an official police, sheriff, highway patrol or state game ranger vehicle directing the operator to bring the vehicle to a stop and who willfully increases the speed or extinguishes the lights of the vehicle in an attempt to elude such peace officer, or willfully attempts in any other manner to elude the peace officer, or who does elude such peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 21 O.S.2001, § 540A(A) (emphasis added). This provision requires more than simply failing to yield to an emergency vehicle or willful disobedience to the lawful order of a police officer—acts made unlawful in themselves by 47 O.S.2001, §§ 11-405(A) and 11-103, respectively. Section 540A(A) requires, among other things, that the refusal to yield or obey police directives be made for the purpose of attempting to elude the police officer. In Appellant’s matter, the evidence established that Appellant turned onto Highway 66 at a corner intersection where a police officer was standing outside his vehicle trying to flag Appellant to stop. When Appellant did not stop his vehicle but kept on driving, the officer got in his patrol car and, with lights and sirens engaged, caught up with Appellant and followed him.

Before bringing his Kia automobile to a stop, Appellant had traveled the shoulderless, four-lane highway for less than two miles from the intersection where the officer had been standing. The evidence showed that, during the time Appellant was being followed by the officer, Appellant drove only at or near the speed limit, traveled in the right-hand lane, passed no other cars, did not disobey any traffic control devices or signs, and did not try to flee when he brought his car to a stop. Appellant testified that he did not see the patrol car behind him until several seconds prior to his pulling over and stopping in one of several driveways that were along the side of the road. The evidence further showed that Appellant was using his cell phone at the time he was stopped. These facts are insufficient to show that Appellant was attempting to elude the police officer’s vehicle. At most they show that Appellant was neglectful in paying attention to his driving or was, at worst, simply refusing to stop at the first available opportunity.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Judgment and Sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CM-2002-3759 is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. IT IS so ORDERED.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.2001, § 540A(A).
2. 47 O.S.2001, §§ 11-405(A) and 11-103.
3. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety U. Ryan, 1978 OK CIV APP 47, I 8, 591 P.2d 1187, 1189 (Okl. App. 1978).
4. Spuehler v. State, 707 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540A (2001) - Attempting to Elude a Police Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-405(A) (2001) - Failing to Yield to an Emergency Vehicle
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-103 (2001) - Disobedience to Traffic Control Devices

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Ryan, 1978 OK CIV APP 47, I 8, 591 P.2d 1187, 1189
• Spuehler v. State, 707 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985)