Court Opinion

ID: 9789126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:28:25.282843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:19.778087
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
concur in part/dissent in part.
¶ 1 I concur in the finding that Appellant was denied a fair trial by improper character evidence. The admission of character evidence is governed by 12 O.S.2001, § 2404. The evidence in this case did not fall under one of the well established exceptions for admissibility. Further, the prosecution overemphasized Appellant’s connection to witchcraft to the point that it detracted the jury from their duty to decide the case based upon the law and the facts. Therefore, I agree that the witchcraft evidence was not relevant and not admissible but not for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
¶ 2 I dissent to the Court’s finding of an abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting the computer generated crime scene re-enactments. The re-enactments were properly authenticated by Agent Dailey and were based upon her expert testimony. Agent Dailey testified the re-enactments were based upon the various statements Appellant made to the police and by comparing those statements to the actual physical evidence. Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined Agent Dailey about the re-enactments and the basis for her conclusions. Any inconsistencies in her testimony or in the evidence used to support her conclusions or in her conclusions themselves were issues for the jury to weigh, not this Court.
¶ 3 Based upon her testimony in both direct and cross-examination, there was no danger the jury would be confused into believing the re-enactments were actual images of the crime. The re-enactments were clearly presented as possibilities with Agent Dai-ley commenting on the likelihood of each based upon her expert review of the physical evidence. The re-enactments were relevant evidence to rebut Appellant’s claims that the shooting was an accident or suicide. Contrary to the majority opinion, this case involves the same type of “solid data” as in Harris v. State, 2000 OK CR 20, 13 P.3d 489, and the computer generated crime scene reenactments were properly admitted under Harris.