Court Opinion

ID: 9547372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:46:34.566043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:40.456239
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in the result:
I concur with the result reached by the Court in this case, but I wish to comment on a few points.
First, while I agree that there are “sufficient independent indicia of reliability” to *940make the in-court identifications of defendants admissible, Reaves v. State, 649 P.2d 777 (Okl.Cr.1982), the photo-lineup of Evans itself was so impermissibly suggestive that it should have been excluded from trial. However, this error was not reversible as the testimony about the pre-trial lineup was merely cumulative of the in-court identification.
Second, our cases show that a cautionary instruction is required under certain circumstances, e.g. Pisano v. State, 636 P.2d 358 (Okl.Cr.1981), and Hall v. State, 565 P.2d 57 (Okl.Cr.1977). Under the test expounded in those cases, the facts of this case do not indicate the need for such an instruction. But, I do not agree that a failure to give a cautionary instruction when one is required can be cured by giving a general “credibility of witnesses” instruction.
Finally, I agree that the trial court’s allowing the prosecutor to recall a defense witness for the purpose of impeachment during rebuttal time could be considered a re-opening of cross-examination, and therefore, not an abuse of discretion. However, 12 O.S.1981, § 2609 states:
“A. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination ... [emphasis added]
This statute clearly requires such rebuttal to be during cross-examination. If cross-examination is to be re-opened during rebuttal time, as we are allowing in this case, that fact should be made clear in the record, and the examination should be strictly limited to that expressed purpose.