# Short v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · April 14, 1999 · 70 O.B.A.J. 1223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627759

## Case

- **Full name:** Terry Lyn SHORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 14, 1999
- **Citations:** 70 O.B.A.J. 1223; 980 P.2d 1081; 1999 OK CR 15; 1999 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 47; 1999 WL 243589
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Strubhar, Lile, Johnson, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 57 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/9627759

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[the fact that this reason, criminal records by family members, was not used in every instance in which it arose to excuse potential jurors, does not lessen its legitimacy as a race-neutral explanation"

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Judge:
special concur:
¶ 1 I specially concur with the opinion by Judge Lumpkin herein. I do wish to point out certain items that are especially troubling in this particular case.
¶ 2 Victim impact statements or testimony is highly emotional. Courts must be very sensitive to follow the guidelines that this Court established in Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶¶ 77-79 , 909 P.2d 806, 828 .
¶ 3 It is important to note in this case that the testimony of Mrs. Yamamoto was not objected to until after she had completed her victim impact statement. Further, the complained of article from the Oklahoma City University campus newspaper was admitted by stipulation. As the Court pointed out, a harmless error analysis is proper in this particular case as it relates to Mrs. Yamamoto’s statement and the information contained in the campus newspaper.
¶ 4 Trial courts should be very careful not to allow victim impact evidence from parties who are not of the victim’s family or someone designated by the family. How far this Court will go in allowing victim impact evidence from persons not of the victim’s family or designated by the family because it meets the “financial, emotional, psychological, and *1111 physical effects,” part of the statute may have to wait for another day. Any such evidence should be restricted to a “quick” glimpse. Cargle, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 75 , 909 P.2d at 828 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627759. Public record. Not legal advice.