"Surely killing a person infringes on that same right [to life]. Appellant has presented nothing to this Court showing that the Legislature's ability to establish a punishment of death for first degree murder in any way violates his 'inherent' right to life[, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry]."
How later courts described this case
- "Surely killing a person infringes on that same right [to life]. Appellant has presented nothing to this Court showing that the Legislature's ability to establish a punishment of death for first degree murder in any way violates his 'inherent' right to life[, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry]."
- aiding and abetting is an alternative factual theory versus a different legal theory of guilt
- "When a trial court sustains an objection, most error is cured.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAPEL, Presiding Judge,
concurs in result:
¶ 1 I agree that Slaughter’s convictions and sentences of death should be affirmed. I write separately to briefly address three points. First, while I agree that the Oklahoma death penalty statutes are constitutional, I do not join in the majority’s rationale therefor as stated in this opinion. Second, the opinion devotes almost thirty pages to a discussion of prosecutorial misconduct. I believe this opinion is too long, and this is among the sections that could be cut. This was a hard-fought case with outstanding attorneys on both sides. On occasion each side may have crossed the line but, reviewing all the allegations, I find there is no reversible error.
¶ 2 Finally, I disagree with the majority’s decision that some hearsay testimony of Cynthia Johnson was admissible as an excited utterance. I believe her telephone conversation with the OSBI was appropriately admitted as an excited utterance, but that her subsequent conversation with her friend was not made while Johnson was under the stress of excitement. However, the evidence was relevant and otherwise admissible, and Johnson was certainly unavailable as a witness. After reviewing the record, I believe these statements were admissible under 12 O.S. 1991 , § 2804(B).
¶3 I am authorized to state that Judge Lane joins in this vote.