# Mollett v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · April 30, 1997 · 68 O.B.A.J. 1675

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576905

## Case

- **Full name:** Lloyd Edward MOLLETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 30, 1997
- **Citations:** 68 O.B.A.J. 1675; 939 P.2d 1; 1997 OK CR 28; 1997 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 31; 1997 WL 211796
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lane
- **Judges:** Johnson, Chapel, Lumpkin, Strubhar, Chapel'S, Lane
- **Cited by:** 40 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/9576905

## Opinion text

LANE, Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part.
I concur in affirming the judgment in this case, but dissent to affirming the sentence. The victim impact evidence offered in this case consisted of a statement a sister of the deceased gave on behalf of herself and her younger sister and a statement prepared by her mother. The mother and the younger sister did not testify. Their statements are authorized by title 22, section 984, which in my opinion only authorizes this type of statement to be given to the judge at the time formal sentence is pronounced. It is not authorized to be given to the jury. In addition, the statements of the mother and younger sister were not subject to cross-examination. See, my special vote in Charm v. State, 924 P.2d 754, 773 (Okl.Cr.1996).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576905. Public record. Not legal advice.