# Smith v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · September 20, 1991 · 62 O.B.A.J. 2896

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633452

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Tandy SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 20, 1991
- **Citations:** 62 O.B.A.J. 2896; 819 P.2d 270; 1991 OK CR 100; 1991 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 109; 1991 WL 183167
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parks
- **Judges:** Johnson, Lane, Lumpkin, Brett, Parks
- **Cited by:** 38 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/9633452

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633452. Public record. Not legal advice.