Court Opinion

ID: 9626700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:21:55.830094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:07.602385
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
specially concurring:
I write separately to address the appellant’s third proposition of error. I find that the majority has improperly characterized the issue as one involving confrontation. However, insofar as A.H. testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination, appellant was not deprived of confrontation. See Jones v. State, 781 P.2d 326, 328 (Okl.Cr.1989). Rather, I find the issue to be the admissibility of the doctor’s hearsay testimony as to what A.H. told them during her examinations. Properly framed, I find any error in the hearsay to have been waived by appellant’s failure to object at trial. Wilson v. State, 554 P.2d 806, 809 (OH.Cr.1976).