supporting continuing threat was prior convictions for pointing weapon, history of violent arguments with wife and girlfriend, and attempt to kill police officer after killing victim
How later courts described this case
- supporting continuing threat was prior convictions for pointing weapon, history of violent arguments with wife and girlfriend, and attempt to kill police officer after killing victim
- great risk of death not found where defendant shot wife on steps of daycare center at point blank range and the evidence did not show that bystanders were in the immediate vicinity
- two separate attacks not driven by the same intent
- public defender asserted failure to present mental-health mitigation evidence, including diagnoses of inadequate personality disorder and organic brain damage
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*624 LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the judgment and sentence in this case. However, I do not agree with the application of Snow v. State, 876 P.2d 291, 297 (Okl.Cr. 1994), to the facts of this ease. The Court seeks to apply an interpretation to the language in Snow which does not comport with either the criteria or the analysis in Snow . In effect, the Court’s contorted view of the application of the surmised intent of a defendant would ensure a vacating of the “to knowingly create a great risk of death to more than one person” aggravator in toto. I strongly disagree with that interpretation. The evidence in this case, when properly viewed in light of our construction of the statutory aggravator, is more than sufficient to support the “to knowingly create a great risk of death to more than one person” ag-gravator. Therefore, the Court is not required to reweigh the evidence to find the death penalty is supported by the law and facts in this ease.