*1 guilty 1976). attorney was found There an dec making a false material knowingly grand under oath before

laration while suspend response was This court’s

jury. years of law for four practice

him from origi of his July the date

effective rein applicant was suspension. The 9, 1979. See State

stated November Associa ex rel. Bar Oklahoma Oklahoma Gresham, 599 W.

tion Ollie P.2d 401

(Okla.1979). rehabilitat-

Applicant proven has himself court. according rules of this to the

Therefore, hereby reinstated Applicant Okla- law in the State of practice

homa.

DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON

KAUGER, JJ., concur. J., HODGES,

OPALA, V.C.J., with whom decisis.

joins, concurring reason of stare Bar Associa- ex rel. Oklahoma

See State Cantrell, Okl.,

[1987] (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in disbar- from its retroactive dissenting

ment and

effect).

HARGRAVE, C.J., and SIMMS JJ.,

SUMMERS, dissent. Walters, appel- for Flanagan,

Kathleen lants. and John C. Jim HOUSLEY Atty. of Okla- Henry, Gen. H. Robert Stevens, Appellants, Gen., Poe, Atty. Asst. homa, B. Wellon appellee. City, for Oklahoma OPINION Judge: LANE, Presiding Vice Appeals of Oklahoma. Stephens were Housley and John C. Jim Concealing crime of together tried 1713) O.S.1981, (21 Property § Stolen County. Both court district by jury and after a trial convicted (4) years of four to terms sentenced Depart custody of the Oklahoma Appellants have

ment of Corrections. *2 316 wholly failed to among

brought appeal alleging, wherein the instant deprived important infor they provide that things, with their other prosecu1 when the This failure right their to fair trial criminal defendants. mation to the with crimi minor, failed to them majority it of the involved was against the them. nal records of witnesses testimony of case. Without the State’s agree proposition remand We this witnesses, very likely it that both is these trial. the case for new acquitted. We Appellants would have been that a harmless error. cannot find this was having Appellants charged with Appellants’ Accordingly, convictions are Caterpillar truck en- possession of stolen hereby RE REVERSED and the case is trial, testified gine. At several witnesses MANDED for a new trial. engine the about how obtained receiving it. they and what did after the two primary against three witness de- P.J., BRETT, J., PARKS, felony previous all had convic- fendants concur. were Calvin

tions. witnesses involved JOHNSON, J., in at concurs result. Nunley, had convicted of least who been felonies, and Earl three LUMPKIN, J., dissents. Melton, Wayne had convict- who each been previous felony. of one JOHNSON, Judge, concurring in Despite agreement the State’s result: any criminal histories for witness felo- United holding I aware of am the convictions, only the ny State revealed that 667, States 105 S.Ct. 473 U.S. witness, Nunley, Calvin had a convic- one 3375, (1985). Bagley What resulted tion. That conviction had after previous writs has written modifies the charges present the case. were filed in Brady Supreme holding the The law well settled that crimi 83, 1194, Maryland, 373 83 S.Ct. 10 U.S. provided is entitled to be defendant (1963). Basically, by putting L.Ed.2d 215 concerning with information the criminal Brady failure to proviso new that dis- against the records of witnesses them. requested impeachment close evidence or State, (Okl.Cr. 595 797 Stafford would constitutional er- not be State, 486 P.2d 646 1979); Stevenson v. probability unless there is a reasonable ror cert. denied (Okl.Cr.1971), 1040, that, the evidence disclosed to had been the (1972). 30 In 92 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 733 defense, proceedings the result of case, linking Appellants testimony have been different. would engine developed primarily the stolen appears case it that the one In this wit- through testimony three of the witness ness, Nunley, only was the Calvin who Specially, es identified above. the testimo crime, linking had party Stevens to at ny Nunley, of Calvin critical to State’s felony It further least four convictions. defendants, against only both was the case only at the one of appears that time of testimony linking to the crime at Stevens felony convictions was admitted. Had credibility Consequently, hand. of this convictions, jury known of three other witness, two, well very as the other appear the conclusion as to it would that important Ap defense mounted may innocence well have been dif- guilt or pellants. Therefore, I concur in the result ferent. the reliability “When aof witness Bagley point out the deci- do wish but guilt may be determinative of the or inno separate. sion defendant, cence of nondisclosure of affecting credibility” requires evidence his LUMPKIN, dissenting: Judge, Reed v. a new trial. 657 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1983) respectfully I cert. denied 464 must to reverse the convictions L.Ed.2d 307. decision case, remand new trial when the we are faced with a situation case and for a order, previous deter- alle- with the trial court’s support the sufficient to is not record parties agreement time. Appellant at this mine whether gations of affirmative limited the State’s must be finds the convictions The Court *3 prior convictions outside action to discover the State the failure of due to reversed prior County Tillman and establish how the form impeachment evidence ultimately discovered. convictions were who testi- of witnesses prior of findings fact and conclu- Without these of However, record in fied for State. if cannot determine sions of law this Court the alle- to sustain case is insufficient did or did not State the State Appellants that gations of the by defined the trial duty to disclose as of prior convictions known failed to disclose Compel the Motion- to court when the trial compliance the witnesses. granted. Motion Appellant’s granting court’s that Calvin Compel the disclosed State The facts of this case an issue rus- of cattle Nunley had been convicted previously by not addressed Courts. does County. The record tling in Tillman prosecutor That issue is has a whether required the if the trial court not reveal exculpatory evidence to “search” for check on complete a records State for the defendant. The United States Su basis, merely nationwide or statewide or preme has addressed the of a Court actually known prior convictions disclose exculpatory prosecutor to disclose known handling attorney by the assistant district defendant, regardless evidence to mo- single reference to the the case. The made, request if type request or no granted by agree- that it was tion indicated 667, 105 United States v. record is also parties. ment of the (1985), and Unit 87 L.Ed.2d 481 S.Ct. the assistant district void on what actions Agurs, ed States v. if the attorney actually took to discover (1976). However, prior convictions. The witnesses did have requirement place these cases not on do copies judg- produced have and disclose un prosecutor to seek out County Stephens ments and sentences from fully exculpatory evidence. To ad known Nunley County naming Calvin and Kiowa presented in this case the dress the issues defendant; Texas, County, as the Harris to conduct an trial court must be directed defendant; naming complete evidentiary hearing Colorado, naming Earl County, Prowers upon will be factual which Court basis However, the Wayne Melton as defendant. a decision. able to render reveal how these doc- record does above, I must set forth For reasons uments were discovered. this time. decision at questions deprive the These unanswered evidentiary basis it needs to Court of the presented. the issues Rather than

decide assumptions which are

deciding the case on allegations made

drawn from are not addressed in

Appellants, but which evidentiary portion of the record DOYLE, Appellant, Lee David I would remand the presented appeal, the District Coun- case to Court

ty for the District Court to with directions evidentiary hearing. an conduct evidence and enter court could then receive findings of fact setting forth Appeals

an order of Oklahoma. would determine conclusions of law which required what actions State prior and disclose convictions of

to discover testify listed to

witnesses who were complied conclude whether