# Honeycutt v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 20, 1992 · 834 P.2d 993

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593197

## Case

- **Full name:** John HONEYCUTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 20, 1992
- **Citations:** 834 P.2d 993; 1992 OK CR 36; 1992 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 52; 1992 WL 108037
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parks
- **Judges:** Johnson, Lane, Brett, Parks, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9593197

## Opinion text

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in result:
I concur in the results reached by the majority, but am compelled to remark upon the prosecutor’s improper comments. First, it was error for the trial court to admit such statements which intrude upon the jury’s responsibility to determine the credibility of witnesses. The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, adopted by this Court in Tart v. State, 634 P.2d 750 (Okl.Cr.1981), provide that it shall be un *1002 professional conduct for a prosecutor to “express his personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence of the guilt of the defendant.” ABA Standards, § 5-8(c). In this case, the prosecutor expressed his personal belief as to the truth of the State’s witness’s testimony and the falsity of the appellant’s. The prosecutor said “she (state’s witness) is not lying to you,” and “what reason does she have to lie?” (Tr. 406). Further, he concluded his closing argument by implying that appellant was a liar. He said “somebody has lied in this case and who has the most to lose?” (Tr. 406). We have repeatedly held that accusing a defendant of lying is improper. See Cowles v. State, 636 P.2d 342, 345 (Okl.Cr.1981). See also Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368, 369 (Okl.Cr.1981). However, the whole closing argument was not so fraught with error that it infected the entire proceedings to a point that fundamental fairness was denied. Compare Ward v. State, 633 P.2d 757 (Okl.Cr.1981). Therefore, I conclude that the error was not verdict determinative and did not deprive appellant of a substantial right. See 20 O.S.1981, § 3001.1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593197. Public record. Not legal advice.