Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

508 P.2d 1104

Trantham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1973-04-03

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 1988 · most notably Hays v. State (1980), Kennedy v. State (1982)

29 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-04-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BRETT, Judge

¶1(concurring in part, dissenting in part).

¶2While I concur in that part of this decision which reflects that the jury determined the guilt of the defendant, I respectfully dissent to the affirmance of the sentence which I believe is excessive;

¶3Notwithstanding the fact that defense counsel did not object to the inflammatory and prejudicial statements in the prosecutor’s closing argument, I believe they were fundamentally unfair and unnecessary. Defendant is correct when he asserts that marihuana is not defined as a drug, but the prosecutor’s closing argument left that effect. While I do not find those comments referring to the “dope culture” so offensive, I do believe the prosecutor’s closing statement, “I ask you to please not turn this dope salesman loose . . . ” was plainly calculated to prejudice the jury.

¶4Finally, it is most problematical that defendant will not possess $2,500, when he completes his penitentiary sentence; so, it appears unnecessary to- impose such a heavy fine in order to later imprison the defendant for failure to pay it.

/508/p2d/1104 · .json · Public domain