Court Opinion

ID: 9553461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:30:02.537137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:10.281229
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring in results:
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case. However, as Judge Johnson has pointed out, the issue in this case is impeachment for untruthfulness under 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B)(1), rather than bias. The Court presents an artful analysis of bias evidence as it relates to prior arrests but we must not be distracted from the facts of the case and the provisions of the Oklahoma Evidence Code. The witness had previously testified regarding not wanting drugs around his house, therefore, the subsequent arrest was valid impeachment evidence. The State asked the question regarding the prior arrest and the witness admitted it. Extrinsic evidence was not involved and the State complied with Section 2608. I therefore concur in the results reached by the Court.