# Warner v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · September 26, 2006 · 144 P.3d 838

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786969

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles Frederick WARNER, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 26, 2006
- **Citations:** 144 P.3d 838; 2006 OK CR 40; 2006 WL 2788641
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Vice-Presiding, Johnson, Chapel, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 88 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by TAYLOR v. STATE, 419 P.3d 265 (2018).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786969

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that any error arising from failure to redact from videotape of detective's interrogation of child-victim's mother the detective's comment that victim had broken leg was cured when prosecutor elicited testimony from detective on direct examination that he mistakenly th…
- finding that where record does not set out Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol, an appellant's claim of Eighth Amendment violation based on reference to pancuronium bromide and "two other" drugs and supported by newspaper articles is speculative "at best"
- holding admissible a girlfriend's testimony that during the two weeks before the victim's murder the defendant had requested and been denied anal sex where defendant had been charged with anal rape and murder of a young girl
- holding that failure to object to jury instruction waives all but plain error review

## Opinion text

*897 A. JOHNSON, J.,
Specially concurs.
¶ 1 I concur in this opinion, but write specially to again address our rule limiting the admission of defense evidence intended to show that another person committed the crime charged. See Gore v. State, 2005 OK CR 14 , 119 P.3d 1268, 1278-79 (A. Johnson, J., concurring in results).
¶ 2 Limitations upon the admission of proffered evidence of third-party guilt are necessary to assure a balanced and fair criminal trial. On the other hand, rules defining those limitations must be rationally related to their purpose — to keep out evidence that is without sound probative value and that serves only to confuse the issues before the jury.
¶ 3 To the extent the Oklahoma rule requires the defense to show an “overt act” on the part of an alleged third-party perpetrator before the evidence may be admitted, it is arbitrary. An arbitrary rule of exclusion creates the risk of denying a criminal defendant his right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786969. Public record. Not legal advice.