# Hammon v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · March 28, 2000 · 999 P.2d 1082

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541573

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Eugene HAMMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 28, 2000
- **Citations:** 999 P.2d 1082; 2000 OK CR 7; 2000 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 7; 2000 WL 310272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Chapel
- **Judges:** Lile, Lumpkin, Johnson, Strubhar, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541573

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing robbery as general-intent crime

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541573. Public record. Not legal advice.