Court Opinion

ID: 9849021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:33:12.071356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:57.492594
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
concurring in result.
I write to address the use of the demonstrative tape, State Exhibit Number 142. Upon viewing, it is obvious that it was produced to be introduced as evidence in a trial. It depicts the sponsoring witness, Lt. Tom Bevel, narrating and leading the viewer through the crime scene. It shows the witness demonstrating his theories as to how the murder occurred by his acting out the role of the killer. At times Bevel is asked questions by a voice off camera (presumably R. Scott, the camera operator). It also shows graphic eloseups of the victim prior to the corpse being removed from the scene with Bevel calling attention to various aspects of the body and the surrounding area.
I find that the introduction of the tape to be error. It was unnecessary and repetitious. Bevel had already testified as to the blood spatters and his theories by use of diagrams and overlays when the tape was introduced. In short, it added nothing to the proceeding that was not already introduced by the same witness. At the same time, the presentation of the blood and gore with a running commentary by the witness contributed nothing to the factual basis of the ease. Instead, it called attention to gruesome *28scenes. Its prejudicial value outweighed the probative value.
I am not opposed to the use of television recordings as evidence in a trial under the proper circumstances.1 There are times when they may be the best evidence that can be introduced such as when they are made simultaneously with the event. They are also useful to show demeanor of a person and circumstances under which a confession is made.2
However, I do not find the error in this case sufficient to cause reversal. Bevel was available for cross examination, and the remaining evidence was sufficient to overcome the admission of the tape. However, in proper circumstances the use of a television tape in this manner may be sufficient to cause reversal. It is not so in this ease.

. See Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 973, 112 S.Ct. 2940, 119 L.Ed.2d 565 (1992) (Lane, J. dissenting).

. See Williams v. State, 226 P.2d 989 (Okl.Cr.1951).