Court Opinion

ID: 9550354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:34:28.161341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:25.964425
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Judge,
specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I must dissent to the reversal of Counts III and IV. Title 21 O.S.1981, § 1283 provides that:
It shall be unlawful for any person having previously been convicted of any felony in any court of a state or the United States to have in his possession or under his immediate control, or in any vehicle which he is operating, or in which, he is riding as a passenger, any pistol, imitation or homemade pistol, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun or rifle, or any other dangerous or deadly firearm which could be easily concealed on the person, in personal effects or in an automobile. (Emphasis Added)
Under this statute, I am of the opinion, that the State is not required to prove that the pistols were capable of discharging a lethal projective. The statute clearly states that even possessing an “imitation or homemade pistol” is unlawful for a convicted felon. Clearly, an imitation pistol will not fire a lethal projectile. Moreover, even in Nelson v. State, 687 P.2d 744 (Okl.Cr.1984), cited by the majority, Judge Parks, in his opinion, did not require the State to prove by direct evidence that the pistol was capable of firing a lethal projectile but allowed it to be proven by the surrounding circumstances. I would af*112firm the judgments and sentences m Counts III and IV.
While I agree that Count II should be reversed, I limit my concurrence to the specific facts of this case where the two pistols from the police evidence room were sold to the defendant for one price, in one unit, by two police officers.