# Cudjo v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · September 9, 1996 · 67 O.B.A.J. 2716

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543872

## Case

- **Full name:** Willard Keith CUDJO, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 9, 1996
- **Citations:** 67 O.B.A.J. 2716; 925 P.2d 895; 1996 OK CR 43; 1996 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45; 1996 WL 515811
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Chapel
- **Judges:** Johnson, Lumpkin, Strubhar, Chapel, Lane, Chapel'S
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9543872

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"
- reversing death sentence where voir dire limited to this improper question

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543872. Public record. Not legal advice.