concluding that the improper exclusion of a defense witness warranted re-sentencing
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the improper exclusion of a defense witness warranted re-sentencing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the results reached by the majority, but I do not agree with the reasoning as it pertains to the sufficiency of the Information. I maintain the position I set forth in Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 , (1996), and I would not alter the rules of pleading in an Information that we followed prior to Parker . However, I find the Information sufficient under the old rules. The Information covers all of the elements of the crime charged. It is true that it could be better drafted and include some of the more detailed specifics of the crime. However, this defect must be objected to at the trial level to preserve the issue for appeal. The failure to describe the acts with more detail would be subject to pre-arraignment motions, but it is not plain error that may be addressed for the first time on appeal. Short v. State, 634 P.2d 755 (Okl.Cr.1981); Byrne v. State, 620 P.2d 1328 (Okl.Cr.1980).