Williams v. State

¶1ON REHEARING

¶2The State of Oklahoma has filed a Petition for Rehearing in the above styled and numbered cause, and asks this Court to reconsider the requirement for bifurcated proceedings as set forth in our Opinion, arguing that only a “fortuitious circumstance of the destination of the arrestee”1 may determine whether he is entitled to a one-stage or two-stage trial.

¶3The State also argues that the underlying felony conviction is a substantial requirement of 21 O.S.1971, § 1283, and as such, is an essential element of the crime which must be pled and proved in a single stage hearing, analogous to prosecution under 21 O.S.Supp.1976, § 443, Escape from a Penal Institution:

¶4While there is some merit to the State’s argument, this Court is of the opinion that it must give way to the need to accord the accused due process and to avoid, where possible, any procedure which may unnecessarily prejudice the jury. In most instances of violations of § 1283, as exemplified by the case at bar, it is possible, by utilization of the bifurcated proceedings, to shield the jury from potential prejudicial evidence as it makes its decision on guilt or innocence. However, in other cases a one-stage trial is mandated by virtue of the fact that the arrestee carried the weapon in total compliance with the Oklahoma Firearms Act2 and the sole violation of state law came from combining the carrying of a weapon with the felony conviction (§ 1283, supra).

¶5We agree with the State when it argues that the prior felony conviction is an essential element of a violation of § 1283, but in the interest of constitutional due process, that element must await the second stage of the trial to be introduced, when possible.

¶6In light of the above reasoning, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate FORTHWITH.

¶7BRETT, J., concurs.