# Boyd v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · July 7, 1992 · 839 P.2d 1363

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553490

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald Keith BOYD, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 7, 1992
- **Citations:** 839 P.2d 1363; 1992 WL 139623
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Parks, Vice-Presiding, Lane, Brett, Johnson, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 61 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/9553490

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that instructions on depraved mind murder were correctly refused when the defendant shot the victim a second time in the chest at close range
- holding that trial courts are required to instruct the jury "on every degree of homicide which the evidence in any reasonable view suggests”

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
concurs in results.
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case. However, I cannot join in the Court’s broad comment regarding the method of proof that no charges were filed as a result of Appellant’s contacts with Officer Schoenberger or the Court’s implication that a Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), analysis is required in this case.
The Court’s comment regarding the available method of proof that charges were not filed as a result of the contacts with Officer Schoenberger does not recognize the restrictions placed on this type of evidence by 12 O.S.1981, § 2803. Therefore, the comment should not be read to amend the statutory requirements of admissibility.
The Court’s discussion of the supplemental proposition regarding the need for a Mills analysis infers that this type of review is required. However, it should be noted that Mills is not applicable to the *1376 Oklahoma capital sentencing procedure. The Maryland sentencing procedure is distinctly different from the procedure applied in Oklahoma. Therefore, the Court should refrain from creating either a misconception that Mills addresses the sentencing procedure utilized in Oklahoma or an additional nuance of legal fiction to confuse our criminal jurisprudence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553490. Public record. Not legal advice.