holding prejudice is not presumed from trial court's written communication with jury after consulting with counsel
How later courts described this case
- holding prejudice is not presumed from trial court's written communication with jury after consulting with counsel
- “Appellant claims ... that he should have been allowed to present evidence of the cost effectiveness of the death penalty in mitigation of the imposition of that punishment. Appellant’s request was properly denied by the trial court as such evidence is irrelevant, and does not qualify as mitigating *519 evidence, having no bearing on Appellant’s character, prior record, circumstances of the offense committed or Appellant’s future conduct.”
- noting that self-defense instruction depends on evidence to support it
- “Appellant’s willingness to concede that there is no dispute over the identity of victim or the injuries sustained is not determinative of the photographs’ admissibility.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAPEL, Vice Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
We continue to see case after case where the jury sends a note to the trial judge during deliberations inquiring about the possibility of parole. The reason why jurors repeatedly ask this question is because they are confused. They want, need, and deserve an answer. I continue to believe we should fashion an instruction which clarifies this issue for the jury. 1 I am concerned about the ramifications of our failure to do so since it seems clear to me that some jurors may be voting for a death sentence only because they believe that life without parole really does not mean life without parole.
I therefore concur based on stare decisis.
. See Mayes v. State, 887 P.2d 1288, 1324-25 (Okl.Cr.1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), or McGregor v. State, 885 P.2d 1366, 1383 (Okl.Cr.1994) where I discuss this issue.