Langley v. State ( 1991 )

PARKS, Judge,

specially concurring:

I agree that the statement made by Dr. Edwards did not constitute an evidentiary harpoon because there is no indication that the statement was calculated to prejudice appellant. However, because the statement did concern improper evidence of other crimes, appellant was entitled to the requested admonishment. I am disturbed by the following statement made by the majority excusing the trial court’s failure to admonish the jury: “In this instance, such an admonition would have placed undue emphasis on the evidence and only served to prejudice the Appellant in the eyes of the jury.” (Majority at 530). Obviously, defense counsel did not agree with this view or the request would not have been made. This Court should not substitute its view for those of defense counsel on the probably effect of a requested admonishment.

In the instant case defense counsel made a request and the evidence shows that he was entitled to the admonishment requested. Despite the majority’s professed belief as to its probable effect, I find that the failure to give the admonishment was error. However, I do not believe that such error determined the verdict or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See 20 O.S.1981, 3001.1. On this basis, I concur in the results reached by the majority.