Court Opinion

ID: 9542688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:23.459188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:41.599875
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(dissenting) :
I agree that in this case the issue of entrapment was not established as a matter of law but presented a question to be determined by the trier of fact. It is my opinion, however, that it was improper to *532permit a consideration of the defendant’s earlier deferred sentence to enter into that determination. I am unable to say that such improper consideration did not influence the trier of fact to reject the entrapment defense. It is for that reason I dissent.
I do not undertake here to attempt to unravel the twisted contradictions of 63 O.S.1971, § 2-410, which permits for certain purposes the use of an “expunged” record, but it must be pointed out that however that statute is construed, it. cannot come to the rescue of the prosecution’s case in the instant matter. There is no evidence that defendant’s deferred sentence occurred after the enactment of Section 2-410, and an application of the harsher consequences of that provision to an earlier deferred sentence is constitutionally impermissible. The reason for the uncertainty at trial about the time of the deferred sentence was that the record of that matter had, quite properly, been expunged when the defendant successfully completed his period of probation. The prosecutor in this case was allowed to testify that he had attempted to get a copy of the judgment and sentence in the earlier case and had been told by Judge O. C. Craig of Okfus-kee County that nothing was available because the record was expunged.
I cannot agree with that reasoning in the majority opinion which finds any error committed here to be harmless for the reason that the trial judge, sitting as trier of fact, could not have avoided learning of defendant’s deferred sentence and probation because it was necessary for him to rule upon the admissibility of that matter. Surely there is a difference between having knowledge of a matter and using that knowledge in making a factual determination. Juries are routinely charged to disregard certain matters, and to avoid permitting them to enter into their determination of the facts.
Neither can I agree, in the face of the entrapment defense, that any error committed here was harmless because the defendant was sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment because I believe the objectionable evidence may have influenced the finding of guilt.
I would reverse defendant’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial.