Court Opinion

ID: 9553490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:30:25.469149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:17.928774
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
concurs in results.
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case. However, I cannot join in the Court’s broad comment regarding the method of proof that no charges were filed as a result of Appellant’s contacts with Officer Schoenberger or the Court’s implication that a Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), analysis is required in this case.
The Court’s comment regarding the available method of proof that charges were not filed as a result of the contacts with Officer Schoenberger does not recognize the restrictions placed on this type of evidence by 12 O.S.1981, § 2803. Therefore, the comment should not be read to amend the statutory requirements of admissibility.
The Court’s discussion of the supplemental proposition regarding the need for a Mills analysis infers that this type of review is required. However, it should be noted that Mills is not applicable to the *1376Oklahoma capital sentencing procedure. The Maryland sentencing procedure is distinctly different from the procedure applied in Oklahoma. Therefore, the Court should refrain from creating either a misconception that Mills addresses the sentencing procedure utilized in Oklahoma or an additional nuance of legal fiction to confuse our criminal jurisprudence.