# Holliday v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 20, 1988 · 755 P.2d 124

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550307

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel D. HOLLIDAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 20, 1988
- **Citations:** 755 P.2d 124; 1988 OK CR 105; 1988 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 101; 1988 WL 51823
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parks
- **Judges:** Bussey, Brett, Parks
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9550307

## Opinion text

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree that appellant’s conviction should be affirmed but choose to comment on the improper comments made by the prosecutor. The prosecutor stated that appellant’s testimony made “him a liar.” Clearly, the comment was improper; however, no objection was made by defense counsel, therefore we may review only for fundamental error. Tart v. State, 634 P.2d 750 (Okla.Crim.App.1981).
This Court has repeatedly held that although the prosecutor may comment on the evidence and draw logical inferences therefrom, he cannot inject his personal opinion or beliefs by speculating as to the truthfulness of the defendant. Henderson v. State, 695 P.2d 879, 883 (Okla.Crim.App.1985); Lewis v. State, 569 P.2d 486, 489 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). While the comments made in the present case were improper, I cannot say that they rose to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550307. Public record. Not legal advice.