reversing death sentence "where two venire-persons who expressed reservations about the death penalty were immediately exeused," without "further inquiry into their views regarding the death penalty"
How later courts described this case
- reversing death sentence "where two venire-persons who expressed reservations about the death penalty were immediately exeused," without "further inquiry into their views regarding the death penalty"
- vacating death sentence where inadequate voir dire prevented this Court from determining whether two jurors removed for reservations about death penalty were, in fact, ineligible to serve
- wherein this Court found evidence of non-violent offenses was not probative of the “continuing threat” aggravator
- "[T]he manner of [the victim's] killing did not involve any acts of injury or cruelty beyond the scope of the act of killing itself."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAPEL, Vice Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to the decision to affirm the conviction in this case as I find the Information here defective. The Information and problems resulting therefrom in this case are not comparable to the issues discussed in Parker. 1 Rather, the Information and resulting problems in this case are more comparable to the issues in Pickens, 2 The Cudjo Information charges felony murder (the Information is poorly worded, but there is a specific reference to the felony murder *903 statute on the face of the document and a reference to an underlying crime on the charging language, all of which would make the Information sufficient under Parker to charge felony murder) and he was convicted of malice aforethought murder. The jury was not even instructed on felony murder. The result is that we have before us in this case a person who was convicted and sentenced to die for a crime for which he was never charged. We should not allow such a result as it is a clear violation of the due process clauses of the OHahoma and United States Constitutions.
I am authorized to state that Judge Lane joins in this dissent.
. 917 P.2d 980 (Okl.Cr.1996).
. 885 P.2d 678 (Okl.Cr.1994).