881 P.2d 92 - Bartell v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Cargle v. State (1995), Phillips v. State (1999)

35 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.

LANE, Judge,

¶1specially concurring:

¶2I do not disagree with the majority when it subjects the error in admitting the tape to a harmless error analysis. However, I do not think it necessary.

¶3In my dissent to Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344 (Okl.Cr.1991) I expressed my view that 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 752 did not violate the Confrontation Clause of either the state or federal constitutions, and that subject to the limitations of the evidence code, the videotaped statement of a child victim may be admissible. I find nothing in the tape or its use that would make it inadmissible under the evidence code, and therefore I vote to affirm the conviction without using the “harmless error” analysis.

JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge,

¶4dissenting:

¶5I agree in the dissent of Judge Chapel herein, but in so doing I need to clarify my *102position as to the dissent. I also agree with Judge Chapel that a harmless error analysis may be applied to the videotape that was admitted pursuant to 22 O.S. § 752. I was the author of the opinion as it relates to such statute. Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2940, 119 L.Ed.2d 565 (1992).

¶6When the harmless error analysis is attached to this case, one cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence of the video tape, since there was little other evidence, did not lead to the finding of the jury and contribute to their verdict.