explaining that defendant who is able to give detailed, lucid account of circumstances of crime is hard pressed to argue that he was significantly intoxicated at the time of the incident
How later courts described this case
- explaining that defendant who is able to give detailed, lucid account of circumstances of crime is hard pressed to argue that he was significantly intoxicated at the time of the incident
- “Mere words alone, or threats, menaces, or gestures alone, however offensive or insulting, do not constitute adequate provocation.”
- evidence was compelling that murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel when victim struggled with defendant, repeating “Oh my God,” before his death
- "In life" photos inadmissible if they have no probative value.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by TAYLOR v. STATE, 2018 OK CR 6 (2018)
Id., 556 U.S. at 786--87, 129 S. Ct. at 2085.2 This Court's decisions in Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, ¶ 55, 144 P.3d 838, 866; Miller v. State, 2001 OK CR 17, ¶ 10, 29 P.3d 1077, 1080; Valdez v. State, 1995 OK CR 18, ¶ 33, 900 P.2d 363, 374; Walker v. State, 1990 OK CR 44, ¶ 12, 795 P.2d 1064, 1067; Ake v. State, 1989 OK CR 30, ¶ 40, 778 P.2d 460, 469; and McCaulley v. State, 1988 OK CR 25, ¶ 9, 750 P.2d 1124, 112…
Superseded by statute
ates v. Pettigrew, 468 F.3d 626, 638 (10th Cir. 2006) ("The proffering of a photograph of the deceased victim, while living and posed with her family, as opposed to a photo depicting only the decedent, 'needlessly pushes the prosecutorial envelope, and could, if coupled with errors not present here, jeopardize a conviection'" (quoting United States v. Jones, 24 Fed.Appx. 968, 975 (10th Cir. 2001))); Valdez v. State,…
by statutemedium confidence
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the affirmance of the first degree murder conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. However, I find the Court’s vacating of the “great risk of death to more than one person” aggravating circumstance is not supported by the facts or prior case law.
In Smith v. State, 727 P.2d 1366, 1373 (Okl.Cr.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1033 , 107 S.Ct. 3277 , 97 L.Ed.2d 780 (1987) and Hays v. State, 617 P.2d 223, 231 (Okl.Cr.1980), this Court upheld the aggravator under similar circumstances wherein the defendant pointed a gun in a threatening manner at bystanders.
Further, statements by Appellant that he had previously committed murder should be considered as evidence supporting this ag-gravator. The statements were not introduced as evidence of another crime, but were so closely related to the murder as to be admissible as part of the res gestae of the offense. In fact, the statements are direct evidence of his intent and the “great risk of death to more than one person” aggravator.
In footnote 95 the Court refers to an affidavit from an inmate in the Grady County Jail with Orduna. This ex-parte affidavit, obtained after trial and attached to Appellant’s brief, is not a proper part of the record on appeal and should play no part in our review of the ease. This Court should restrict its review to the record created through the trial court proceedings or matters properly added through the prescribed supplementation process set out in Rule 3.11 of this Court’s rules.
Further, in reviewing Appellant’s claim that the trial court’s determination of his competency violated due process, the opinion reviews for plain error only. I agree with that scope of review but base that decision on this Court’s decision in Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690, 694-695 (Okl.Cr.1994). This Court should use its own case law where applicable rather than referring to federal law as this Court has the ability to apply our evidence code differently than the federal courts. The scope and method of plain error review was set out in Simpson .