stating "[s]uch a motion must in any event be filed within one year of the imposition of Judgment and Sentence."
How later courts described this case
- stating "[s]uch a motion must in any event be filed within one year of the imposition of Judgment and Sentence."
- officer's general query was "aimed at saving the girl's life--not calculated to build a case against Appellant"
- " Mere exhortations to cooperate and tell the truth, not accompanied by any threat or promise, do not render a confession involuntary."
- holding decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge:
CONCUR IN
RESULT.
T1 I concur in the Court's decision to affirm the judgment and sentence in this case and find the sentence of death supported by the law and evidence.
2 However, I do have concerns about the syntax used in describing our appellate review. As to Proposition 1, the opinion states "we review the district court's factual findings for clear error ..." when, in fact, on appeal, this Court reviews a trial court's ruling on the facts for an abuse of discretion. "An abuse of discretion has been defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented." Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8 , 1 24, 232 P.3d 467, 474 (citing State v. Love, 1998 OK CR 32, 12 , 960 P.2d 368, 369 ). See also Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46 , €60, 147 P.3d 245, 268 (citing C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12 , 1 5, 989 P.2d 945, 947 ); Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78 , 1 19, 950 P.2d 839, 848-849 (citing R.J.D. v. State, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125 (OKk1.0r.1990)) (quoting Stevens v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 216, 225 , 232 P.2d 949, 959 (1951)). While the abuse of discretion standard includes an evaluation of whether the judge's decision is clearly erroneous, we have not adopted a separate standard labeled "clear error." We must be careful with the words we use due to the fact our readers evaluate those words for future arguments. - Slight changes give rise to arguments that standards of review have changed when in fact they have not. I would just urge the Court to be consistent in the verbiage it uses to explain the methods utilized in analyzing issues on appeal.