See Myers v. State, 2006 OK CR 12, ¶ 28, 133 P.3d 312, 324 ; Ochoa v. State , 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 34, 963 P.2d 583, 596-97 ; Kamees v. State , 1991 OK CR 91, ¶ 13, 815 P.2d 1204, 1207 ; Trim v. State , 1991 OK CR 37, ¶ 7, 808 P.2d 697, 698-99 ; Allen v. State , 1989 OK CR 79, ¶ 14, 783 P.2d 494, 498 ; Maxwell v. State , 1989 OK CR 22, ¶¶ 5-6, 775 P.2d 818, 819-20 ; J.A.M. v. State , 1988 OK CR 10, ¶ 9, 749 P.2d 116, 119 ; Elix v. State , 1987 OK CR 204, ¶ 12, 743 P.2d 669, 672 ; Lahey v. State , 1987 OK CR 188, ¶¶ 24-26, 742 P.2d 581, 584-85 ; Miles v. State , 1987 OK CR 169, ¶ 12, 741 P.2d 877, 879 ; Scales v. State , 1987 OK CR 100, ¶¶ 7-8, 737 P.2d 950, 952-53 ; Ross v. State , 1987 OK CR 48, ¶ 8, 734 P.2d 321, 323 ; Coulter v. State , 1987 OK CR 37, ¶ 7, 734 P.2d 295, 298 ; Bradley v. State , 1985 OK CR 149, ¶ 7, 715 P.2d 78, 80 ; Christian v. State , 1985 OK CR 137, ¶ 5, 708 P.2d 1133, 1133-34 ; Elvaker v. State , 1985 OK CR 128, ¶ 10, 707 P.2d 1205, 1207 ; Aycox v. State , 1985 OK CR 83, ¶ 5, 702 P.2d 1057, 1058 ; Jones v. State , 1985 OK CR 14, ¶ 16, 695 P.2d 13, 16 ; Brownfield v. State , 1983 OK CR 125, ¶ 11, 668 P.2d 1165, 1168 ; Maple v. State , 1983 OK CR 52, ¶ 2, 662 P.2d 315, 316 ; Godwin v. State , 1981 OK CR 23, ¶¶ 7-9, 625 P.2d 1262, 1264-65 ; Mintz v. State , 1979 OK CR 32, ¶¶ 6-8, 593 P.2d 1093, 1095 ; Martinez v. State , 1977 OK CR 291, ¶ 16, 569 P.2d 497, 500 ; Washington v. State , 1977 OK CR 240, ¶¶ 39, 41, 568 P.2d 301, 311 ; Towning v. State , 1974 OK CR 67, ¶¶ 6-7, 521 P.2d 415, 417. ¶ 27 To summarize, extrajudicial identification evidence remains competent and material in the trial of a criminal case for the reasons discussed in Hill and the cases applying it.
To the extent Plaintiff Williams seeks to pursue his false arrest claim against Defendant City of Norman, the Court's determination that Defendant Vassar acted with probable cause is fatal to that claim. See Christian v. State, 1985 OK CR 137, 708 P.2d 1133. Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs are trying to bring a negligent retention or hiring claim, the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act precludes such a claim. See Jackson v. Okla. City Pub. Schs., 2014 OK CIV APP 61, ¶ 9, 333 P.3d 975, 978-79.
When a defendant fails to object to testimony from a police officer about a victim's extra judicial identification of that defendant, this Court has held that the admission of such testimony does not constitute reversible error. Christian v. State, 708 P.2d 1133 (Okla. Cr. 1985): and Towning v. State, 521 P.2d 415 (Okla. Cr. 1974). Because the appellant did fail to object to this testimony at trial, this assignment of error is without merit.
Specifically, appellant argues that Detective Smith was allowed to testify that he showed a photographic line-up to F.A., and that she identified the appellant as her attacker. Although we are convinced that admission of Detective Smith's testimony was error and that the jury should have been admonished to disregard it, an inordinate amount of prejudice did not result. Furthermore, appellant's failure to object to the admission of the testimony constitutes a waiver of the objection on appeal. Christian v. State, 708 P.2d 1133 (Okla. Cr. 1985). The identification followed the positive incourt identification of the appellant by F.A. Moreover, even if the evidence had been properly excluded there was sufficient evidence to justify the appellant's conviction.