violation of victim protective order admissible to show motive
How later courts described this case
- violation of victim protective order admissible to show motive
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority that the other crimes or acts evidence introduced by the State was reversible error. I dissent to the majority’s finding that the trial court erred in refusing Appellant’s request for change of venue. Jurors McGee and Necessary had not heard or read media accounts of the charges against Appellant, and the remaining jurors testified that while they had either heard or read about the casé, they had not discussed it with anyone and could render an impartial verdict based upon the evidence. The record reveals that the requirements of 22 O.S.1981, § 662 have been met. See Tegeler v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 138 , 130 P. 1164 (1913), and Turner v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 164 , 111 P. 988 (1910).
Nor should the fact that the citizens of Wagoner County were the “victims” of the crimes mandate a change of venue, inasmuch as the victims of all crimes committed within this state are its people and an impartial jury would never be found using that criteria. To apply the label of “victim” to the citizens of a county in the context of the majority opinion would necessitate a change of venue in any case wherein a county official is charged with crimes arising from misconduct in office. I do not believe we should establish a precedent that broad.