noting that where same evidence "is used to establish multiple aggravating circumstances referring to the same aspect of a defendant or his crime, ... only one of the duplicated circumstances should be weighed against whatever mitigating factors the jury may consider"
How later courts described this case
- noting that where same evidence "is used to establish multiple aggravating circumstances referring to the same aspect of a defendant or his crime, ... only one of the duplicated circumstances should be weighed against whatever mitigating factors the jury may consider"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
Despite the fact that appellant neither objected to the second stage instructions nor submitted his own requested instructions, it continues to be the opinion of this writer that the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage is unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced. See Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Parks, P.J., concurring in part/dissenting in part). Furthermore, while this writer is “not presently prepared to abandon my opinion ■ regarding the validity of the ‘continuing threat’ aggravating circumstance,” I believe that more definitive guidance is needed. Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117, 1126 (Okl.Cr.1991) (Parks, P.J., specially concurring). As a matter of stare decisis, however, I must yield to the majority view regarding these issues.