holding that "[the fact that this reason, criminal records by family members, was not used in every instance in which it arose to excuse potential jurors, does not lessen its legitimacy as a race-neutral explanation"
How later courts described this case
- holding that "[the fact that this reason, criminal records by family members, was not used in every instance in which it arose to excuse potential jurors, does not lessen its legitimacy as a race-neutral explanation"
- denying relief where admission of actual search warrant and accompanying affidavits was not objected to at trial and where evidence contained therein was "merely cumulative to other evidence already before the jury"
- “[ejxeusal of a potential juror because of a prior criminal record or because of the criminal records of family members are legitimate reasons for removal”
- "[e]xcusal of a potential juror because of a prior criminal record or because of the criminal records of family members are legitimate reasons for removal"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, Judge:
special concur:
¶ 1 I specially concur with the opinion by Judge Lumpkin herein. I do wish to point out certain items that are especially troubling in this particular case.
¶ 2 Victim impact statements or testimony is highly emotional. Courts must be very sensitive to follow the guidelines that this Court established in Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶¶ 77-79 , 909 P.2d 806, 828 .
¶ 3 It is important to note in this case that the testimony of Mrs. Yamamoto was not objected to until after she had completed her victim impact statement. Further, the complained of article from the Oklahoma City University campus newspaper was admitted by stipulation. As the Court pointed out, a harmless error analysis is proper in this particular case as it relates to Mrs. Yamamoto’s statement and the information contained in the campus newspaper.
¶ 4 Trial courts should be very careful not to allow victim impact evidence from parties who are not of the victim’s family or someone designated by the family. How far this Court will go in allowing victim impact evidence from persons not of the victim’s family or designated by the family because it meets the “financial, emotional, psychological, and *1111 physical effects,” part of the statute may have to wait for another day. Any such evidence should be restricted to a “quick” glimpse. Cargle, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 75 , 909 P.2d at 828 .