# Pennington v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · December 28, 1995 · 66 O.B.A.J. 36

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549993

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael L. PENNINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 28, 1995
- **Citations:** 66 O.B.A.J. 36; 913 P.2d 1356; 1995 OK CR 79; 1995 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 85; 1995 WL 769061
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chapel
- **Judges:** Johnson, Lumpkin, Lane, Strubhar, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 35 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/9549993

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding even if suspect's statement identifying the location of a shotgun were suppressed, officers had probable cause to obtain a search warrant and would have inevitably discovered it

## Opinion text

CHAPEL, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring in result:
The evidence in this case supporting the “continuing threat” aggravator, in my opinion, is very weak. I am not one of those who think this aggravator is a “standardless catch-all.” The aggravator serves a valid constitutional purpose — it narrows the class of persons eligible for the death sentence from all murderers to those which the evidence establishes will in the future be a continuing threat to society. I do not find this language vague. If the evidence shows the defendant will in the future continue to be a danger to society I am prepared to vote to uphold the aggravator. However, the evidence used to support this aggravator should be independent of the charged murder. 1 Otherwise, the aggravator does not, in fact, narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty because every murderer could be deemed a continuing threat to society because of the conviction of the crime charged. In this case, I find the evidence, other than the shotgun killing of the victim, that Pennington will be a continuing threat to society lacking.
I do find the evidence sufficient to uphold the aggravator “that the murder was committed for the purpose of preventing lawful arrest or prosecution”. Here, Pennington *1375 bought a shot-gun and sawed off the barrel. He entered a convenience store with the clear and obvious intent to commit robbery with the loaded sawed-off shot-gun. He made no attempt to disguise himself when he shot the defenseless clerk in cold blood. He shot the cash register in an attempt to get at the money inside. He then ran, taking the gun with him to Ohio. I believe this evidence, while circumstantial, is sufficient to support this aggravator. Moreover, the evidence supporting this aggravator outweighs the evidence in mitigation submitted by Pennington. I therefore find the sentence of death appropriate under our law. It does appear to me, however, that the opinion of the Court should more thoroughly analyze the evidence in support of the aggravator and the mitigation evidence in its reweighing.
. See my comment in footnote 60 of Cannon v. State, 904 P.2d 89 (Okl.Cr.1995).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549993. Public record. Not legal advice.