Court Opinion

ID: 9623464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:33:56.001511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:29.654752
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Judge,
concurring:
For the reasons and in accordance with the authorities cited by my colleague J. Brett, I am of the opinion that the judgment and sentence should be affirmed. Appellant’s contention that the State suppressed evidence critical to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), is not supported by the record, for it is clear that counsel for Appellant was not deprived of producing such evidence but did in fact make the following stipulation during the mitigation-aggravation hearing:
“MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor. I apologize for the delay. We finally contacted Mr. Jim Dickey at work. We are now able to make the following stipulation regarding what his testimony would be were he here to testify today in person.
“And that would be that he observed the Volkswagen in question leave the Howard Johnson Filling Station in the manner that the other witnesses have described, going off the road; that he then went in and informed Trooper Crabtree, who was drinking coffee in the restaurant, of what he had seen; whereas Trooper Crabtree responded: I will cheek it out.” [Tr. 270-271 Hearing of May 15, 1978]
Appellant’s further contention that the arrest was unlawful by reason of it having been made for a traffic violation not committed in the trooper’s presence is likewise without merit. The State’s photograph No. 2 of the Volkswagen appearing at Transcript page 5, certification hearing of June 14, 1977, and State’s Exhibit No. 13 admitted by stipulation during the aggravation-mitigation hearing of May 15, 1978, Transcript page 32-33, were both photographs of *1172the Volkswagen driven by Appellant at the time of the murder. These clearly demonstrate that the Volkswagen did not have rear fenders or mud flaps and were therefore in violation of 47 O.S.1971 § 12-405(j)1, punishable under the provisions of 47 O.S. 1971, § 17-101.
Trooper Crabtree followed Appellant’s vehicle in the daylight hours and had ample opportunity to observe the violation. This evidence alone is sufficient to support the legality of the stop.

. “(j) All trucks, trailers, and other vehicles operating on the highways, except animal-drawn vehicles, not equipped with fenders over the rearmost wheels shall have attached thereto a rubber or fabric apron directly in rear of the rearmost wheels, and hanging perpendicular from the body of the vehicle. Said apron shall be of such a size as to prevent the bulk of the spray or other substances picked up from the roadway from being thrown on the windshield of a following vehicle and thereby obscuring the vision through the windshield of the driver of said vehicle. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a farm tractor moving over the state highway system at a speed less than twenty (20) miles per hour.”