# Coddington v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · August 16, 2006 · 142 P.3d 437

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788345

## Case

- **Full name:** James Allen CODDINGTON, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 16, 2006
- **Citations:** 142 P.3d 437; 2006 OK CR 34; 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35; 2006 WL 2356020
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lewis
- **Judges:** C. Johnson Vice-Presiding, Chapel, Johnson, Lumpkin, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9788345

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788345. Public record. Not legal advice.