Smith v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. McDonald v. State

    764 P.2d 202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 13 times
    In McDonald, this Court reviewed 12 O.S. 1981 § 2608[ 12-2608] (B)(1) which permits a witness to be cross-examined with specific instances of the witness's conduct other than conviction of a crime.

    Before the enactment of the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S. 1981 §§ 2101-3103[12-2101-3103] [ 12-2101] [12-3103], the general rule was that mere accusations of criminal activity, or of an arrest or charges not amounting to convictions, are not available to the State for impeachment purposes. Smith v. State, 581 P.2d 467 (Okla. Cr. 1978); Brown v. State, 487 P.2d 963 (Okla. Cr. 1971). Inquiring into a witness's arrest history was considered improper impeachment because not every arrest results in a conviction. Hipp v. Tulsa, 692 P.2d 566, 567 (Okla. Cr. 1984). Despite the enactment of section 2608(B)(1) of the evidence code, this Court has continued to adhere to this rule.

  2. Brison v. State

    730 P.2d 537 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    Reversal of convictions because of bad faith errors by the prosecutor breeds discontent with the judicial system and disrespect for the law.Smith v. State, 581 P.2d 467, 474 (Okla. Cr. 1978). Such testimony, elicited by the prosecutor, from both the appellant and Mr. Cleveland, was highly prejudicial and denied the appellant of his right to a fair trial.

  3. HIPP v. CITY OF TULSA

    692 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    Inquiring into the appellant's prior arrests improperly impeaches his credibility for the reason that not every arrest results in a conviction. See, Smith v. State, 581 P.2d 467 (Okla. Cr. 1978). Accordingly, this case must be REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial in accordance with the views expressed herein.

  4. Hedgepath v. State

    600 P.2d 348 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    The appellant contends that the trial court erred by informing a witness of her right not to incriminate herself in the presence of the jury. In Smith v. State, Okla. Cr. 581 P.2d 467 (1978), we held that the defendant was not deprived of a fundamental right when the prosecutor suggested that a defense witness be advised of her right not to incriminate herself. In this case, the trial court found that the manner in which the defense witness, Deborah Perkins, was advised of her Fifth Amendment rights was not prejudicial to the appellant.