describing robbery as general-intent crime
How later courts described this case
- describing robbery as general-intent crime
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAPEL, Judge,
Dissents:
¶ 1 For several reasons, I cannot vote to uphold the sentence of death in this case. For one, in so far as the Oklahoma death penalty scheme permits the execution of a mentally retarded person, it violates both the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions. 1
¶ 2 The majority acknowledges that Ham-mon squarely raises the issue of the constitutionality of executing a mentally retarded person, but concludes that this is a “legislative issue.” It is, of course, often wise for courts to defer to the legislative branch on certain matters. Some issues, however, cannot be deferred. When a court is presented with a properly raised justiciable issue, it must decide the issue. It cannot punt. The notion that the legislature can decide the *1103 constitutionality of its own acts is patently absurd.
. See Lambert v. State, 1999 OK CR 17 , 984 P.2d 221 (Judge Chapel, concurring in part and dissenting in part).