2006 OKCR 40 - Warner v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably 135 S. Ct. 2726 - Glossip v. Gross (2015), 2012 OK CR 7 - NELOMS v. State (2012)

10 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

CHAPEL, Presiding Judge,

¶1concur in results.

¶2¶ 1 I concur in this decision by reason of stare decisis. See my separate writings in Gore v. State, 2005 OK CR 14, 119 P.3d 1268; Fairchild v. State, 1999 OK CR 49, 992 P.2d 350 and Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 90 P.3d 556.

*897A. JOHNSON, J.,

¶3Specially concurs.

¶4¶ 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).

¶5¶ 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.

¶6¶ 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.

LEWIS, Judge,

¶7concurs in results.

¶8¶ 1 I am of the opinion that there were several errors in the handling of this trial. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, I concur in the result.