defense expert properly prohibited from testifying to opinions not individualized to the defendant or his crime
How later courts described this case
- defense expert properly prohibited from testifying to opinions not individualized to the defendant or his crime
- defense expert could not testify about effect on defendant's children of death sentence compared to life without parole, where expert had neither met nor examined the children
- continuing threat supported by unadjudicated past violent attacks on decedent
- upholding convictions and sentences
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Thornburg v. State, 70 O.B.A.J. 2392 (1999)
¶ 14 Appellant acknowledges this Court’s holdings in Perry and Hooker and suggests that his case is distinguishable because his testimony did not render every defense unavailable except alibi.
The opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
January 23, 1995
John Michael Hooker was tried by jury before the Honorable Leamon Freeman in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-88-1939. He was convicted of two counts of First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 701.7. During the sentencing portion of Hooker’s capital trial, the jury found (1) Hooker was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; (2) Hooker knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; (3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (4) there was a probability that Hooker would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing-threat to society. The jury sentenced Hooker to death for both murder convictions.
By published opinion issued on November 14, 1994, this Court affirmed Hooker’s convictions and sentences. Hooker is now before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing, Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch. 18, App.
According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall be filed for two reasons only:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument.
In his petition for rehearing and supplement to petition for rehearing, Hooker raises five propositions. These propositions fail to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. Accordingly, these propositions will not be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON Presiding Judge
/s/ Charles S. Chapel CHARLES S. CHAPEL Vice-Presiding Judge
/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN Judge
/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE Judge
/s/ Reta M. Strubhar RETA M. STRUBHAR Judge