Court Opinion

ID: 9530748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:03:10.558575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:14.241278
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree that appellant’s convictions should be reversed based upon the errors discussed above. However, independent of those errors, I also find that the overzealous actions of Assistant District Attorney *614Sharon Ashe denied appellant of a fair trial. Without extensive elaboration, the following is indicative of the prosecutor’s misconduct in this case.
First, Ms. Ashe either inexcusably failed or deliberately refused to produce exculpatory/impeachment evidence specifically requested by the defense. Defense counsel independently secured this information on the day before trial. Such evidence, which indicated that M.N. was a habitual liar, a thief and a violent, aggressive and vengeful boy with significant psychological disorders, was certainly relevant for purposes of impeaching the State’s complaining witness. A prosecutor has an ethical duty to “make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense....” Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d). Moreover, “[Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment....” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). See also Coleman v. State, 747 P.2d 322, 323 (Okl.Cr. 1987). Impeachment evidence falls within the Brady rule. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).
I also wish to address improper comments and questions of the prosecutor during trial. Ms. Ashe asked numerous questions designed to elicit inadmissible testimony. See Chase v. State, 541 P.2d 867, 870 (Okl.Cr.1975). After a thorough review of the record, it is apparent that Ms. Ashe intentionally elicited an evidentiary harpoon. Finally, the prosecutor repeatedly asked argumentative questions of virtually every defense witness.
This case does not represent the first time Ms. Ashe’s misconduct has been addressed by this Court. See Marsh v. State, 761 P.2d 915 (Okl.Cr.1988), and McCrady v. State, Unpublished Opinion, Case No. F-87-490 (Okl.Cr. Oct. 14, 1988). As this writer stated in a separate opinion in McCrady, “Ms. Ashe would do well to heed the warning issued by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir.1986), as her actions indicate she does not comprehend the unique role of a prosecutor in the orderly administration of justice.” “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.” Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, Comment. His or her primary duty is not to convict, but to see that justice is done. Tobler v. State, 688 P.2d 350, 354 (Okl.Cr.1984). On the basis of the foregoing, I find that reversal in this case is also warranted by the misconduct of the prosecutor.
Finally, I wish to reiterate my disagreement with the majority of this Court’s abandonment of the Aguilar-Spinelli standard as it applied to state constitutional attacks upon search warrants. See Langham v. State, 787 P.2d 1279, 1281 (Okl.Cr.1990) (Parks, P.J., concurring in result). As matter of stare decisis, however, I am obligated to apply the Illinois v. Gates standard to the facts of this case. Having done so, I concur that the issuance of the search warrant was erroneous.