# DeRonde v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · February 25, 1986 · 715 P.2d 84

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9614662

## Case

- **Full name:** Ernest J. DeRONDE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 25, 1986
- **Citations:** 715 P.2d 84; 1986 OK CR 29; 1986 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 211
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parks
- **Judges:** Bussey, Brett, Parks
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9614662

## Opinion text

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring in results:
Although I have reached the same conclusion as to affirmance of the judgment and sentence, I feel it necessary to comment on the dilemma of the trial court in attempting to ascertain whether the jury had acted in violation of 22 O.S.1981, § 952(4). In its attempt, the trial court appears itself to have violated 12 O.S.1981, § 2606(B), which states a juror shall not testify about the jury’s deliberations. However, it is a well-established principle of statutory construction that when one statute speaks specifically to an issue of controversy, it takes precedence over a statute dealing with the same subject matter in general terms. C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 51.05 (1974). Therefore, in this case, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of some of the jurors at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, as there was no other way to determine whether the jury had, indeed, violated the statute against the drawing of lots to reach a verdict.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9614662. Public record. Not legal advice.