Court Opinion

ID: 9626637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:20:19.285882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:31.557065
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part:
I concur in all respects with the majority opinion except that part which seeks to set a specific time limit on when the State must file its Bill of Particulars. The majority holds that the State “must” file the Bill of Particulars prior to or at formal arraignment, but then states that such filing may be extended by the trial court for good cause shown. Title 22 O.S.1981, § 470, provides that arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days after the defendant is *69bound over for trial, but that the trial court may extend such date for good cause. Considering the majority’s holding and Section 470 together, it is apparent both that the trial court is vested with broad discretion in setting an arraignment date and that the deadline for filing a Bill of Particulars will vary from case to case. I do not per se disagree with this scenario. However, rather than attempt to place an absolute time limit on the filing of a Bill of Particulars, it is my opinion that this Court should review each case individually to determine whether the Bill of Particulars was filed within a reasonable time prior to trial.
Given the wide latitude of trial courts in extending the arraignment date and the date for filing a Bill of Particulars under either the existing statutes or the majority’s holding, I believe the “reasonable time” standard more accurately describes the test this Court should, and in all likelihood will, employ when reviewing this type of issue. Were we to strictly implement the majority’s standard, this Court would be forced to sanction the filing of a Bill of Particulars in a case where arraignment was set only seven (7) days prior to trial. Clearly, such is not the intent of the majority-
Applying the “reasonable time” standard to the facts of this case, I agree that the filing of the Bill of Particulars only seven (7) days prior to trial was unreasonable.