Court Opinion

ID: 9565497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:22:41.198309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:42.602550
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge:
specially concurring.
I feel that it is necessary for me to distinguish this decision from the one in Tibbetts v. State, 698 P.2d 942 (Okl.Cr. 1985). In Tibbetts, the juror did not make known during voir dire that her son-in-law was a deputy sheriff of Comanche county, or that he was participating in the trial by delivering the defendant to the courtroom. Although in the instant case the juror failed to inform counsel that her daughter-in-law and niece worked for the O.S.B.I., she did state that her own daughter worked for the O.S.B.I. Despite her disclosure, she was left on the jury. The fact that her daughter-in-law, whom Mrs. Had-ley had forgotten worked for the O.S.B.I., appeared in the courtroom appears to be insignificant, especially since the O.S.B.I. agent testifying was a technical witness. *802Moreover, Mrs. Hadley testified both during voir dire and at the motion for new trial that her family ties would not — and did not — influence her decision.
Had the information concerning the daughter not been provided the defense counsel during voir dire, I would take a different view of this decision. However, insofar as the pertinent information was revealed by the juror, I believe the two cases are sufficiently distinguishable.