Court Opinion

ID: 9569091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:10:32.074167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:52.639190
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in results:
Although I concur in the results reached by my brother Judge Brett, I wish to comment on the issue of a writing being used to refresh the memory of witness Bearden. In the present case, it is unclear whether a writing was in fact used to refresh her memory, thereby warranting application of 12 O.S.1981, Sec. 2612. Appellant’s failure to adequately preserve the record on this point effectively precludes review of this error. See Guthrie v. State, 679 P.2d 278, 280 (Okl.Cr.1984). In any event, if a writing was used, the appellant failed to request that the writing be produced for inspection and thus waived the alleged error for appellate review.
With ■ regard to appellant’s contention that the jury’s verdict was based on compromise, the record in this case wholly fails to support any inference of jury misconduct. In his opinion, Judge Brett states that without more facts, “we assume that the jury assessed the amount of punishment by discussion and compromise, and not by averaging,” relying on DeRonde v. State, 715 P.2d 84 (Okl.Cr.1986) and Wacoche v. State, 644 P.2d 568 (Okl.Cr.1986). It is unnecessary to rely upon either DeRonde or Wacoche, as West v. State, 448 P.2d 131 (Okl.Cr.1968) supports the result reached. In West, the record indicated the jury resorted to averaging to arrive at a quotient verdict to assess punishment. Id. at 133. The record in the present case does not indicate any such misconduct. Appellant’s sole basis for this allegation is the fact that the jury found him guilty on the rape charge, but not on the sodomy charge. He infers from this alone that the verdict was based on averaging. West does not support this inference. Id. at 133.
For the foregoing reasons, I agree that the appellant’s judgment and sentence should be affirmed.