Court Opinion

ID: 9542945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:40:35.658103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:20.482459
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction but wish to address the question of the inquiry into prior arrests during cross-examination. Under 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B), specific instances of conduct may be the subject of inquiry as long as they meet certain requirements set out in the statute. Accordingly, while this Court continues to adhere to the general rule that arrests are inadmissible, the acts leading up to the arrest may be admissible under Section 2608(B). See United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 798 (8th Cir.1980).
Application of this rationale to the instant case leads me to the conclusion that *919defense counsel’s actions in questioning appellant about his prior arrests “might be considered sound trial strategy.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-90, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Since it was possible that the acts leading up to this prior arrest would be the subject of inquiry by the prosecutor, sound trial strategy possibly led defense counsel to initiate the inquiry into these acts so as to convince the jury of appellant’s honesty.
Accordingly, I concur.