collecting cases for proposition that failure to request continuance operates as waiver of belated endorsement and noting that Thomas did not so request
How later courts described this case
- collecting cases for proposition that failure to request continuance operates as waiver of belated endorsement and noting that Thomas did not so request
- “Certainly [the evidence adduced at trial] supports a finding that Powell was subjected to serious physical abuse allowing us to proceed to a determination as to whether the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.”
- ‘‘in light of the witness’ inability to identify [the defen- dant] . . . the testimony concerning the [defendant’s] tattoo must be considered relevant evidence’’
- evidence concerning defendant’s tattoo admissible to identify defendant
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
For the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989), I continue to view the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage of trial unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced. However, I must apply the majority’s analysis as a matter of stare decisis. I also reiterate my opinion that the “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied. See Foster v. State, 779 P.2d 591, 594 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Parks, P.J., specially concurring). As a matter of stare decisis, however, I yield to the “torture or serious abuse” standard adopted in Stouf-fer. Applying this standard, I agree that the evidence presented concerning the instant murder satisfied this circumstance *1353 and that the sentence of death should be affirmed.