finding booking questions did not require Miranda warning because "questions certainly were not the kind which the detective should know were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating statements"
How later courts described this case
- finding booking questions did not require Miranda warning because "questions certainly were not the kind which the detective should know were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating statements"
- upholding trial court’s decision to submit correct verdict form to jury for consideration in sentencing phase of capital murder trial after jury noticed first verdict form listed incorrect aggravating circumstances
- feasibility hearing and jury trial on competency held six years after trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision in this case, however, I do not agree with 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 should simply note that Mills is not applicable to the Oklahoma capital sentencing procedure. The Maryland sentencing procedure is distinctly different from the procedure applied in Oklahoma. Therefore, the Court should refrain from creating a misconception that *36 Mills addresses the sentencing procedure utilized in Oklahoma.