# Dodd v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · October 21, 2004 · 75 O.B.A.J. 2999

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797039

## Case

- **Full name:** Rocky Eugene DODD, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 21, 2004
- **Citations:** 75 O.B.A.J. 2999; 100 P.3d 1017; 2004 OK CR 31; 2004 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35; 2004 WL 2360422
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Johnson, Lile, Winchester, Strubhar, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 64 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/9797039

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding defendant’s proprietary knowledge regarding details of a crime provided probable cause for arrest
- finding erroneous admission of hearsay evidence harmless in face of strong evidence of guilt

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Judge,
specially concurring.
¶ 11 agree that Appellant’s convictions and sentences should be affirmed. I write separately to address Propositions 9, 13 and 21.
¶ 2 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions in Proposition 9, we should apply the standard of review set forth in Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21 , 90 P.3d 556, 559 (adopting a unified standard of review for direct and circumstantial evidence). However, whether we apply Easlick or the reasonable hypothesis standard of Smith v. State, 1985 OK CR 15, ¶ 7 , 695 P.2d at 1362, the evidence is sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.
¶ 3 In Proposition 13, admission of Donna Sanford’s victim impact testimony was a violation of 22 O.S.2001, § 984.1(A). See Lott v. State, 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 109 , 98 P.3d 318 . However, I agree that its improper admission did not improperly influence the outcome of the trial.
¶4 Finally, in Proposition 21, Appellant sets forth a litany of issues, which he concedes this Court has previously rejected. While Appellant provides citations to case law where we have previously ruled on the issues, he provides no argument as to the relevancy of the issues to his case. Appellant merely requests that we reconsider our previous decisions. As Appellant has failed to offer any argument in support of his request for reconsideration as required by Rule 3.5C, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2001), I find the issues waived for appellate review. See also Walton v. State, 1987 OK CR 227 , 744 P.2d 977, 979 (the failure to explain how a shortcoming at trial is error waives consideration of the proposition on appeal).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797039. Public record. Not legal advice.