Opinion

Coddington v. State

  • 142 P.3d 437
  • 2006 OK CR 34
  • 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35
  • 2006 WL 2356020
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Aug 16, 2006
Status
Published
Author
Lewis
On the bench
C. Johnson Vice-Presiding, Chapel, Johnson, Lumpkin, Lewis
Cited by
13 cases

explaining that fact finders might "gain greater insight" from audio-visual devices

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that fact finders might "gain greater insight" from audio-visual devices
  • "Videotaped confessions ... are regularly admitted to show the jury the demean- or of a person and the circumstances under which confessions are made."
  • statute permitting pre-mortem photo of vie-tim in homicide trials did not strip trial court of authority to exclude such evidence, when appropriate, under other provisions of the Evidence Code
  • statute permitting pre-mortem photo of victim in homicide trials did not strip trial court of authority to exclude such evidence, when appropriate, under other provisions of the Evidence Code

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

LEWIS, Judge,

Specially Concurs.

¶ 11 agree with the State that parts of the testimony by the defendant’s mother should have been redacted; however, I concur with the opinion that prohibiting the defendant from playing the videotaped testimony to the jury denied the defendant relevant mitigating evidence.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.