Court Opinion

ID: 9789985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:44:52.119779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.596464
License: Public Domain

POWELL, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the conclusion reached, but it should be understood that this Court is committed to the rule, .as stated in Solomon v. State, 79 Okl.Cr. 93, 151 P.2d 944, 945, that:
“Under our statute and practice of permitting the jury to assess the punishment, it is proper to permit the State to introduce the record of the information and judgment and sentence showing a prior conviction as alleged, notwithstanding the prior conviction or convictions have been admitted.”
There are arguments pro and con concerning the desirability of this practice. But so far as this Court is concerned, the answer has been settled by Legislative enactment, and discussion of the merits of the practice can be of no value. What courts of other states have said can be of no aid.
We have cautioned, however, in such cases as Farley v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 192, 226 P.2d 1002, 1009, that (quoting from the body of the opinion) :
“ * * * where ⅜ * * it becomes competent (being an exception to the general rule) to admit evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant, under such circumstances,- this court has held that the State’s attorney should at the time such evidence is offered, indicate the limited purpose for which offered, and that the trial court should follow this up by instructing the jury the purpose for which it is admitted,, and limit them in their consideration of such evidence to that purpose.”
As pointed out in the opinion, it has been held in Matchen v. State, Okl.Cr., 349 P.2d 28, following Little v. State, 79 Okl.Cr. 285, 154 P.2d 772, 773:
“While County Attorney may interrogate defendant concerning other convictions for crime for the purpose of affecting his credibility, the trial court should not allow the examination to be enlarged by asking the details of the crime on which conviction was sustained, as such examination might cause the jury to place undue emphasis on former conviction of accused and thus cause them to convict mainly because of bad reputation of the accused.”
The information setting out the crime, . and judgment and sentence of prior con*407viction which is admissible, as found in Solomon v. State, supra, could be examined by the jury and such record would speak for itself, hut solely for the purpose of enhancement of punishment.
The Court, it will he observed from Judge Nix’s opinion, permitted the prosecuting attorney to cross examine the defendant as to details of previous offenses for the purpose of impeachment of witness, who was apparently trying to be facetious by disclaiming knowledge of some of his prior convictions. Nevertheless, the previous convictions could have been proven by the Court Clerk having charge of the records, and the informa-tions and judgments would have been admissible.
The point raised is weak by reason of the failure to vigorously object, but the objection interposed is held sufficient to bring the matter to the attention of the trial court. I therefore concur in the conclusion of Judge NIX.