# Bartell v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · September 2, 1994 · 65 O.B.A.J. 2910

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633045

## Case

- **Full name:** James Don BARTELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 2, 1994
- **Citations:** 65 O.B.A.J. 2910; 881 P.2d 92; 1994 OK CR 59; 1994 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 66; 1994 WL 474134
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lane
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Lane, Johnson, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 42 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/9633045

## Opinion text

LANE, Judge,
specially concurring:
I do not disagree with the majority when it subjects the error in admitting the tape to a harmless error analysis. However, I do not think it necessary.
In my dissent to Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344 (Okl.Cr.1991) I expressed my view that 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 752 did not violate the Confrontation Clause of either the state or federal constitutions, and that subject to the limitations of the evidence code, the videotaped statement of a child victim may be admissible. I find nothing in the tape or its use that would make it inadmissible under the evidence code, and therefore I vote to affirm the conviction without using the “harmless error” analysis.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633045. Public record. Not legal advice.