# Wilson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · December 31, 1998 · 70 O.B.A.J. 148

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529959

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Lee WILSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 31, 1998
- **Citations:** 70 O.B.A.J. 148; 983 P.2d 448; 1998 OK CR 73; 1998 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 71; 1998 WL 917037
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Lane, Chapel, Strubhar, Lumpkin, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529959

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a dual jury procedure was proper because the Court had previously set forth a brief guideline governing the dual jury procedure. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that “[t]he procedure „requires great diligence on the part of the trial judge and coopera…

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, J.,
specially concurs.
¶ 1 I concur and agree with the majority that collateral estoppel applies in this case as to the question of dual juries. Even though Appellant was not a party to the “Extraordinary Writ,” the doctrine of collateral estoppel would apply and therefore any additional discussion, I feel, is unnecessary. Harjo et al. v. Turnbull, Order (Okl.Cr. January 14, 1997). I agree with the Court’s analysis on the balance of the proposition of error (dual jury issues) but feel that the analysis is unnecessary.
¶2 The Court in its discussion on the DNA test results and other places in the opinion indicates that trial counsel failed to object to statements or admission of evidence and therefore the court could only examine for “plain error.” This, of course, is a proper statement with which I agree but I need to point out that “plain error” is not one and the same as “reversible error.” Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 , (Okl.Cr.1994). This Court has found that the terms “plain error,” “fundamental error,” and “substantial right” are one and the same meaning. Simpson, 876 P.2d at 695 . The errors complained of do not go to the foundation of the case nor show prejudice. The Court was proper in applying the harmless error analysis. Simpson, 876 P.2d at 695 .
¶ 3 Guilt in this case is exceedingly clear. This is a horrible case of an unjustified killing. Clearly all of the parties knew what was going to happen because they could all be easily identified and they had to cover their crime with the atrocious murder. I find nothing in this case that would make me change the jury’s verdict. Therefore, I specially concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529959. Public record. Not legal advice.