Court Opinion

ID: 9593631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:23:39.872247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:25.936475
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I write separately to address appellant’s second assignment of error. The majority resolves this issue by applying Robinson v. State, 743 P.2d 1088 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). I do not believe Robinson applies to the facts of this case.
Appellant admitted having one former felony conviction for possession of cocaine on direct examination. (Tr. at 234) Appellant was less than candid with the jury and, in fact, also has a former felony conviction for robbery with a firearm. Appellant’s admission on direct examination gave the jury the impression he had given a full and complete accounting of his past criminal activity. Fite v. State, 526 P.2d 956, 958 (Okla.Crim.App.1974). The prosecutor could properly cross-examine appellant and elicit his other convictions to show he was not completely candid with the jury once appellant opened the door on direct examination. Id. at 959. See also Kopecek v. State, 567 P.2d 102, 105 (Okla.Crim.App.1977).
Here, the prosecutor’s question, which only elicited the type of conviction but none of the details, did not attack appellant’s character, but merely challenged the credibility of his testimony given during direct examination. Fite, at 959. Having taken the stand, appellant could be cross-examined with the same latitude as any other witness, id., and having opened the door for permissible cross-examination on the number of his former convictions, appellant cannot now complain because his credibility on the issue was impugned. Id. Accordingly, I concur.