Court Opinion

ID: 9527907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:30.067597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:17.389265
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge, specially
concurring:
Although I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and sentence, I write separately to address the prosecutor’s misconduct in introducing a “live” photograph of the victim. Such conduct has been consistently condemned by this Court as an improper attempt to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury. See, e.g., Newbury v. State, 695 P.2d 531, 535 (Okl.Cr.1985); Binsz v. State, 675 P.2d 448, 451 (Okl.Cr. 1984); White v. State, 674 P.2d 31, 36 (Okl.Cr.1983); Boutwell v. State, 659 P.2d 322, 326 (Okl.Cr.1983); Smith v. State, 650 P.2d 904, 909 (Okl.Cr.1982); Ritchie v. State, 632 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Okl.Cr.1981). It is incomprehensible why a prosecutor would risk a reversal or modification by such clearly improper tactics. While I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and sentence of the appellant on this record, I believe that trial judges have an obligation to take affirmative action to prevent such misconduct through the sustaining of objections to the introduction of “before” photographs and by other proper means. In addition, should prosecutors persist in this misconduct, this writer would be inclined to find that defendants who are otherwise not entitled to relief on appeal may be entitled to some form of relief in an appropriate case.