Court Opinion

ID: 9618295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:10:17.674655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:27.652562
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
dissenting:
I agree with the logic of the holding which vests the trial court with discretion concerning whether an expert witness is *956exempted from the rule requiring sequestration of witnesses. However, I cannot as readily reach the conclusion that the Oklahoma Evidence Code did not change the common law. I am, therefore, reluctant to amend the statute by reinserting language which was deliberately deleted by the Legislature.1 Generally, the incorporation into state law of a portion of a federal statutory provision indicates an intention not to import the omitted portion.2 Here, the more appropriate remedy is by legislative, rather than by judicial action.
The appellant raised three allegations of error on appeal: 1) violation of 12 O.S.1981 § 2615 in allowing the appellee’s expert witness to remain in the courtroom after the appellant had requested the rule of exclusion; 2) faulty instructions which misstated the law of manufacturer’s products liability, thus making a verdict for the appellant impossible; and 3) delivery of a prejudicially marked document, which had not been admitted into evidence, to the jury during its deliberation. Perhaps none of these errors standing alone prejudiced the appellant in the presentation of his case to the jury, but the cumulative effect of these allegations requires that the cause be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Opala, J., concurs in the dissent insofar as it reaches the conclusion that the Oklahoma Evidence Code is indicative of legislative intent to abrogate the pre-existing common-law rule of sequestration.

. When on March 10, 1977, the Oklahoma Senate passed SB-276, the Oklahoma equivalent of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the bill contained the subdivision at issue here. When the bill exited the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on April 13, 1978, the third paragraph of § 2615 was no longer included.

. Willmus v. Commissioner of Revenue, 371 N.W.2d 210, 214 (Minn.1985); AirWork Service Division v. Director, Division of Taxation, 97 NJ. 290, 478 A.2d 729, 731 (1984); State v. Greenwald, 454 A.2d 827, 830 (Me.1982); Walker v. Wedgwood, 64 Idaho 285, 130 P.2d 856-857 (1942).