refusing to allow information regarding parole or commutation because sentencing instructions self-explanatory and additional information regarding parole or commutation would serve to drown defendants downstream
How later courts described this case
- refusing to allow information regarding parole or commutation because sentencing instructions self-explanatory and additional information regarding parole or commutation would serve to drown defendants downstream
- finding no fundamental error where an EMT testified that “[w]hen he loaded the body between 9:30 and 10 p.m., rigor had begun; and the body exhibited substantially more lividity, and was colder than it had been six hours earlier”
- contrasting Oklahoma with other states and noting that "Oklahoma does not have a specific parole provision for defendants given life sentences for first degree murder"
- refusing to allow information regarding parole or commutation *1103 because sentencing instructions self-explanatory and additional information regarding parole or commutation would serve to drown defendants downstream
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1323 JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge,
specially concurring.
While I specially concur with the opinion herein, I do wish to point out the slightly different interpretation of the Oklahoma Evidence Code. The appellant, as a leading proposition of error, refers to the reversible evidence that was admitted relative to the settlement of a civil lawsuit and implications that could be drawn therefrom. The Court cites to 12 O.S.1981 § 2408, which is basically identical to the Federal Evidence Rule 408.
The Court cites Freeman v. State, 767 P.2d 1354 (Okl.Cr.1988) and Robinson v. State, 743 P.2d 1088 (Okl.Cr.1987) to stand for the proposition that by adopting the federal rules our Legislature also adopted the philosophy and their interpretation of those rules as litigated in the federal courts. I am also mindful of Laske v. State, 694 P.2d 536 (Okl.Cr.1985) and also the chairman of the evidence subcommittee’s statement in 12 O.S.A. Ch. 40, (West, 1981). While I agree with the general proposition that by adopting the federal rules, we basically adopted the philosophy and interpretation of the federal courts. That does not mean that this Court cannot have a different interpretation nor would the Court be precluded from a different finding based upon different wording in the Oklahoma Evidence Code. Although the Court should be generally bound by a federal court decision or decisions, that is not always the case. This Court has the authority to make a different finding as it relates to its interpretation of the rule or statute.