# Carolina v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · October 5, 1992 · 63 O.B.A.J. 2940

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553462

## Case

- **Full name:** Leroy CAROLINA, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 5, 1992
- **Citations:** 63 O.B.A.J. 2940; 839 P.2d 663; 1992 OK CR 65; 1992 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 78; 1992 WL 253101
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Brett, Parks, Lumpkin, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9553462

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding evidence defendant took possession of drugs and attempted to hide them sufficient

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Judge,
concurring in result:
During direct examination, Don Bradford testified that appellant’s car had previously broken down and it had been pulled into his yard so that he could fix it. Mr. Bradford testified that on the day in question, the appellant had stopped by his house. Shortly after the appellant had arrived, a little guy, “... I think his name is Brian, he came over also right after [appellant] and he had some dope in a little white thing and he was trying to sell it, you know. That whole street was corrupt. They was trying to sell it all up and down the street”. (Tr. 43) When asked whether Brian had tried to sell some dope to him, Mr. Bradford replied, “[n]o, he didn’t because my kids was standing there and we didn’t want that stuff hanging around, you know”. (Tr. 44) Later, when asked whether he knew of anybody in the neighborhood who had complained about Brian selling drugs in that area, Mr. Bradford stated, “[o]nce. I think I was in jail ...” Finally, when asked about his common-law wife, Mr. Bradford replied, “[s]he’s up here. She’s in jail with me, also. We got in trouble at the same time”. (Tr. 47) On cross-examination, and over the objection of the appellant, Mr. Bradford was asked whether six days after the incident involving the appellant, the police had raided his house and arrested him, his wife, and another woman for trafficking in drugs and maintaining a house where drugs were kept. Mr. Bradford replied that that was correct. (Tr. 61)
The majority holds, with limitations, that evidence of a defense witness’ prior arrest may be admissible to show bias. However, in the present case, I find that the prosecutor’s question on cross-examination concerned Mr. Bradford’s credibility. On direct examination, Mr. Bradford had stated that he did not want drugs around his house. In fact, however, he and his wife had been arrested six days later for trafficking in drugs and maintaining a dwelling house where drugs are kept. Thus, such evidence was probative of Mr. Bradford’s character for untruthfulness. 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B)(1).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553462. Public record. Not legal advice.