Court Opinion

ID: 9553692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:33:29.000333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:05.514924
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
In his second assignment, appellant argues the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the jury to rehear the audio tapes of conversations between appellant and an informant over defense counsel’s objection. I agree.
*1181The trial court failed to follow the requirements of 22 O.S.1981, § 894, as interpreted by caselaw. See e.g., Givens v. State, 705 P.2d 1139, 1141 (Okla.Crim.App. 1985); Kovash v. State, 519 P.2d 517, 520 (Okla.Crim.App.1974). Absent compliance with Section 894, I agree with appellant that undue emphasis was placed on the taped conversations. See Martin v. State, 747 P.2d 316, 319-20 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). I fail to see the significant distinction the majority finds between Martin and this case. Accordingly, I dissent to the affirmance of appellant’s conviction.