# 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/9633046

## 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:** Dissent by Johnson
- **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/9633046

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I agree in the dissent of Judge Chapel herein, but in so doing I need to clarify my *102 position as to the dissent. I also agree with Judge Chapel that a harmless error analysis may be applied to the videotape that was admitted pursuant to 22 O.S. § 752. I was the author of the opinion as it relates to such statute. Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344 (Okl.Cr.1991), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2940 , 119 L.Ed.2d 565 (1992).
When the harmless error analysis is attached to this case, one cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence of the video tape, since there was little other evidence, did not lead to the finding of the jury and contribute to their verdict.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633046. Public record. Not legal advice.