Court Opinion

ID: 9574498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:05:32.517011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:38.709510
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to this decision. In his third assignment of error appellant asserts that the cross-examination of appellant’s alibi witnesses was improper. I believe appellant is correct. The prosecutor continued to inquire of the alibi witnesses concerning why they did not come forward to the police, the sheriff, or the district attorney and tell their story. In each instance they ultimately answered that they didn’t know that they should; and that they did make such known to the defense counsel. For the same reasons I concurred in Buchanan v. State, 523 P.2d 1134 (Okl.Cr.1974); and for the same reasons I dissented to Glover v. State, 531 P.2d 689 (Okl.Cr.1975), I am compelled to dissent to this decision. As I stated in my dissent to Glover, supra, at page 694, quoting from 2 *1059Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, § 443 (5th Ed.1956):
A witness called to prove an alibi may be asked when his attention was called to the charge against the accused, and what was the date of the crime. He cannot, however, be asked, in order to impeach him, what he did to inform the prosecuting attorney of the whereabouts of the accused.
In this case the prosecutor attempted to make it appear to the jury that the alibi witnesses should have come into his office and informed him of all they knew. That is not required of any defense witness, notwithstanding the position taken by the prosecutor. For the reasons set forth in appellant’s third assignment of error I would reverse and remand this conviction for a new trial. Therefore, I dissent.