Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Martinez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 14, 1995No. F-88-241Published

1ConcurrenceLumpkin, Judge

I concur in the Court’s decision to reverse and remand this case for a new trial on the basis that Appellant was denied his right to cross-examine David Castillo and the opportunity to establish the foundation for the admissibility of habit or routine evidence. However, the Court’s reliance on Beck v. State, 824 P.2d 385 (OM.Cr.1991), to expand the definition of bias evidence beyond its traditional perameters is misplaced.

Beck addressed the defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness concerning any matter tending to show bias or prejudice. Here, Appellant sought to introduce evidence of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. United States v. AbelSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Salazar v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
  4. Murphy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Hain v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API