Court Opinion

ID: 9790414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:52:38.549628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:29.365138
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge:
concurring in results.
While I agree that this case should be affirmed, I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that a cautionary instruction on eyewitness testimony was not warranted. The majority reasons that such an instruction was not necessary because Officer Maras’ identification of the appellant was positive. In support of this conclusion the majority cites Johnson v. State, 727 P.2d 965 (Okl.Cr.1986). However, Johnson is distinguishable from the present case because in Johnson, only one person identified the defendant, and that person’s identification was positive. In the present case two persons identified the appellant, Officer Maras and Ms. Kelly. While Officer Maras’ identification of the appellant was positive, Ms. Kelly’s was not. Insofar as there were serious questions concerning the reliability of Ms. Kelly’s identification, I would find that an instruction on eyewitness identification was warranted. See McDoulett v. State, 685 P.2d 978 (Okl.Cr.1984). However, because I agree with the majority that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the other strong evidence connecting the appellant to the commission of the crime, I agree that this case should be affirmed.