*1 CORNISH, J., concurs. participating. SUITOR, Appellant,
Johnnie Joe STATE
No. F-79-313. of Criminal
1267 the appellant tween and the and it was to admissible inform the of that relationship that so could properly weigh credibility. witness’s The letter any way did not in to tend incriminate the defendant in either of the crimes for which trial, he was on thus the self-incrimination argument is frivolous. Nor did it tend to exculpate Brady, supra, hence is irrel- evant. asserts that the district granting
court erred in
the State’s motion
joinder
for
two
at
cases
trial. Under
Chaney v.
612
procedure
followed was correct. See
also
Sanders v.
CORNISH, Judge: (Okl.Cr.1978) Coats v. is decisive on issue. Joe was Johnnie convicted on two Obtaining counts of Drugs by Controlled appellant challenges the in- Fraud, After Former Conviction of a Felo- court identification who ny, Osage County. in the District Court of prescriptions. particularly filled isHe evidence was that the went photographic concerned about identifi pharmacy to a on two different to occasions procedures used police. cation Tulsa prescriptions have filled which were later carefully We have examined the forgeries. discovered to be pharmacist’s testimony this re gard, and that examination leads this Court to conclude impropriety that no com majority mitted. The complains also about ments are merit and can without be dis- grant pre-tri the trial refusal to court’s his posed of with brief comments: lineup, al but he concedes he does not unqualified right ques have an to one. The letter from the to one, was discretionary appel tion boyfriend introduced lant not shown an discre abuse when he was cross-examining the friend. tion. appellant says the letter in solely prejudice jury, tended that the There is no merit protection use of the letter violated his claims that trial judge should have dis self-incrimination, against the let qualified himself and that it was error for ter have should been made known to him the hearing district court hold a on the Brady Maryland, 83, 373 U.S. 83 motion for disqualification. Since the mo (1963). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 215 disqualification tion for out spe did not set grounds therefor, judge He contends that the letter cific would proba- tive regarding any justified outright. value issue be- have Instead, jury, fore the that is give appel but incorrect. The he hearing held letter was of the opportunity specific lant an against the tran- cause it consisted of statements has reviewed
grounds. This judge The trial hearing. parties’ penal We find no abuse of interests. script of that judge’s objection ground on the the trial refusal to sustained the his discretion the wit- were not the statements disqualify. penal But the inter- ness’s interests. instruc- appellant’s requested Because the *3 of the declar- ests which matter are those part a of the record were not made tions statements, hearsay who made the be- ants can be con- regarding them argument credibility which is the cause it is their sidered. State, supra. subject Chaney of concern. v. appellant’s pri- proved The the State make state- parties If the to a conversation introducing cop certified by convictions or interests, then an ments their and sentences. This judgments the ies of person who overhears the state- uninvolved of proof method was an may testify ments to them. State, (Okl.Cr.1977). v. Loader argument against The its ad- bases State 456 P.2d Pearce v. missibility O.S.Supp.1980, on 12 appellant, applies to out-of- cited the however, relevant, not be- That section is inapplicable. and is state convictions appellant’s the case was tried before cause correctly in The trial court acted the new evidence code became law. demurrer, motion to appellant’s the ruling trial court’s was in error. dismiss, for a directed verdict of and motion Nevertheless, study of the record leads the acquittal. The reflects conclude that the error was case, this Court to presented prima facie State evidence was of hearsay harmless. The questions of the identification of the factual persons pass were knowledge prove and intent fered to that other appellant and his in jury. ing forged prescriptions Hunt made out the were submitted (Okl.Cr.1979). name, appellant’s prescrip while the two subjects tions which were the of this case appeal alleged The issue of the denial of presented The first by the prior convictions appellant’s in one of the presented by one was him and made out to previously presented to this Court. presented by the one was him second (Febru- No. PC-79-718 Thus, else. the and made out to someone denied; 12, 1980). ary was not people passing pre fact that other fail- through appellant’s it was waived scriptions in name minimal would be of perfect ure it. What the district court probative value. pro- motion to denied was nothing indigent, and there is in ceed as an _ B appellant nor has the the record to this at- con- brought anything remaining assignment more Court’s of error _to that the court’s rul- improper prosecutor. tention indicate cerns ing instance, examining was erroneous. prescriptions, who filled the process of due Regarding the denial people elicited information that two other error, through an see Part accumulation (the hearsay same two involved in the con- II of this below. above) presented twenty versation or forged prescriptions during the more to him II span same time issues, appel- In addition to the above Then, presenting prosecutor his two. assignments lant raises two of error which working insinuated that necessitate some discussion. in collusion with the other two gang.” an inference to “this In his witness to asked a He repeatedly of the record. went outside testify to conversation he had overheard way peo- “these people. He that made comments about the argued between two other work; he stressed hearsay ple drug in the world” conversation was admissible involvement,1 BUSSEY, homosexual Judge, concurring jury appellant’s boy- dissenting and told the part: reality ap- friend was in the victim of the I agree While the judgments and pellant’s crime. The further affirmed, sentences should be I do not be- actually of time length commented on lieve that modification is necessary. My prison length served in relation examination of closing arguments sentence. respective parties leads me to conclude that both counsel for the State and the case, reviewing the record in this defense went the record on occa- any errors sions and were admonished the court. made did influence the in their Objections interposed by both the State and finding had to decide the defense were sustained the court in three issues: did the *4 most instances. Much of the State’s filled; two prescriptions (2) to be ment complained response now of was in forged; those prescriptions did arguments counsel, made defense or was forged. know There upon based during admitted strong point. evidence on each We Objections of course the trial. to other of find no basis reverse that determination arguments complained were sustained However, of this disregard admonished to them. prosecutor intentionally sought to jury’s of emotions instead confining himself to the evidence
case. The result his behavior was a proportion
sentence out of to the severity of reason,
the crime. sentences of the two cases will be modified to fifteen SONTAG, Appellant, James L. (15) years, with two sentences run consecutively. AFFIRMED AS MODI FIED. The STATE of No. M-79-715. J.,
BRETT, P. specially concurs. Court of Criminal concurs in and dissents part. 1981.
BRETT, Presiding Judge, specially con-
curring: stand, concur that the conviction should modify
but I would further the sentences concurrently. them run As stat
ed in “In his repeatedly went
the record.” This Court has condemned
such prosecutors many times. no doubt case influ
enced prosecutor’s improper conduct. Ray
1973). Therefore, I believe sentences
should be concurrently. made to run argue It emphasized for the proportion the matter far out of existence insofar as its relevance. credibility affected the but he