any error invited where qualified emergency room doctor, on re-cross examination, gave opinion child's injuries were "non-accidental trauma"
How later courts described this case
- any error invited where qualified emergency room doctor, on re-cross examination, gave opinion child's injuries were "non-accidental trauma"
- also noting OCCA had previously “approved of testimony regarding professional studies of which an expert is aware”
- photos depicting injuries were admissible to corroborate forensic testimony, show defendant's attitude toward child, and rebut claim of mistake or accident
- referring to “an instruction on misdemeanor-manslaughter under 21 O.S.1981, § 711(1)”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the opinion of the majority on the issue of the trial court’s refusal to give OUJI-CR-727 as a requested instruction. I believe that any time there is sufficient evidence to cause the trial judge to give instructions on an affirmative defense an instruction must be given properly setting out the bur *1157 den of proof. See, i.e., Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1 (Okl.Cr.1992) (instruction necessary for defense of self defense) and Lee v. State, 655 P.2d 1046 (Okl.Cr.1982) (instruction necessary for defense of entrapment). Here, the appellant raised the defense of excusable homicide by reason of accident. The trial court instructed on this defense and gave all of the uniform instructions but number 727, the instruction which sets out the burden of proof.