Court Opinion

ID: 9632780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:25:01.317459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:22.607666
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I join in the dissent of Judge Johnson. In addition, this Court has already adopted guidelines for the trial courts to utilize in determining the admissibility of this type of evidence. State v. Wood, 576 P.2d 1181 (Okl.Cr.1978), set forth the criteria which should be utilized in this case. The Court fails to even acknowledge this prior authority in forming its answer to the questions presented. I also disagree with the Court’s discussion of the constitutionality of 47 O.S.Supp.1989, § 753. I find that Section 753 is constitutional on its face. See also, Harris v. State, 773 P.2d 1273, 1274, 1277 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring) for discussion of constitutionality of Oklahoma’s Implied Consent law.