Court Opinion

ID: 9575762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:16:48.50926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:59.109041
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
specially concurring.
I join in the Court’s well reasoned and articulated decision in this case. It not only follows the precedent regarding interpretation of the Oklahoma Constitution, article II, section 30, established in Degraff v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 519, 103 P. 538 (1909), and followed in Long v. State, 706 P.2d 915 (Okl.Cr.1985), but it also applies the federal interpretation of the United States Constitution as set forth in U.S. v. Finney, 897 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir.1990). See also Langham v. State, 787 P.2d 1279 (Okl.Cr.1990).
The dissent in this case seems to want to reinterpret the United States Constitution for the federal courts and disregard our prior decisions in DeGraff, Long, and Langham. This position is not supported by the scope of our judicial authority or prior caselaw. As footnote 2 of the Order sets out, our prior decisions dictate the result reached by the Court in this matter. In addition, footnote 4 correctly recognizes that Turner v. City of Lawton, 733 P.2d 375 (Okl.1986), concerns only an application in a civil administrative personnel hearing. Further, the Court in Turner did not recognize the prior precedent in DeGraff or seek to modify that decision. Therefore, while the dissent might like to interpret both constitutions in a different manner, the position is not supported by federal or state jurisprudence.