# Brown v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · December 31, 1998 · 983 P.2d 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529995

## Case

- **Full name:** Darwin Demond BROWN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 31, 1998
- **Citations:** 983 P.2d 474; 1998 OK CR 77; 1998 WL 917033
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Chapel
- **Judges:** Lane, Chapel, Strubhar, Lumpkin, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9529995

## Opinion text

CHAPEL, P.J.,
dissenting.
¶ 1 I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial as I find merit in Brown’s first proposition of error. The majority finds error but resolves the error by judging it harmless. In so doing, the majority winks at a very serious constitutional violation. The majority justifies its action by noting that evidence, other than that which ought to have been excluded, proves Brown was guilty. My own view is that in the case of serious constitutional errors, this court should reverse and require the State to do it right. If, as the majority argues, the evidence was otherwise sufficient, the outcome will be the same. But this Court by its action would have upheld the constitution. Winking at serious. constitutional errors, while expedient, degrades and demeans our rights.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529995. Public record. Not legal advice.