Court Opinion

ID: 9585342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:59:23.967678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:55.670038
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
concurs in results.
1Í1 I disagree with the majority in the manner that it resolves Proposition III, the issue of the admission of the video tape of an interview with the victim.
¶ 2 If we were to follow our prior reasoning in Burke v. State, 1991 OK CR 116, 820 P.2d 1344 we must reverse this case. Therein, we found then 22 O.S.1981, § 752 to be unconstitutional because it authorized the admission of such a tape in violation of a defendant’s right of confrontation. I acknowledge that because of this case the legislature repealed § 752. However, the reasoning used in Burke would apply to the admission of the tape whether it is admitted under § 752 or any other section of the evidence code.
¶ 3 I cannot agree that the majority can justify admission of the tape under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. The video does not state what was in the mind of the victim at the time of the incident. Its most damaging content is the depiction of the child playing - with the dolls. It is very graphic and prejudicial.1
*9¶ 4 However, I would agree with the majority that it is admissible under 12 O.S.1991, § 2803.1. This section allows controlled admission of statements made by a child of abuse on the victim. This is consistent with my dissent in Burke. This Court and the Oklahoma Supreme Court have both found this statute to be constitutional.2 The fact that the statement is memorialized by a video recording should enhance its admissibility. In Williams v. State, 98 Okl.Cr. 260, 226 P.2d 989, 995 we found that the use of the talking motion picture machine the phonograph, the dictaphone and similar recording devices to record confessions are admissible in evidence. The reasoning is that they give a truer representation of the statement than an oral recitation of the words by a witness or even a statement taken by a court reporter and signed by the defendant. The same reasoning and rule should also apply to this type of statement. I would overturn Burke and rule that the recording is admissible under the authority of § 2803.1.

. I would find that the fact that it is prejudicial ■ does not make it per se inadmissible because I believe that the probative value of the tape exceeds the prejudicial effect.

. Jones v. State, 1989 OK CR 66, 781 P.2d 326; Matter of W.D., 1985 OK CR 65, 709 P.2d 1037.