Court Opinion

ID: 9561657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:13:40.091191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:05.700979
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
While I agree that the judgments should be affirmed, I must dissent to the modification of the sentences. In Part I of the opinion, the alleged improper testimony was not objected to; consequently, it was waived. Tahdooahnippah v. State, 610 P.2d 808 (Okl.Cr.1980).
Part II of the opinion states that ... “the officer also came very close to implying prior criminality.” I agree that the officer came very close to implying prior criminality, but he in fact did not imply prior criminality. Hence, I find no error.
Part YII of the opinion cites numerous alleged improper remarks. However, none of the comments were met with a contemporaneous objection; thus, any error was waived. Moreover, many of the prosecutor’s comments were invited by argument of defense counsel.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgments and sentences.