# Malone v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · August 31, 2007 · 168 P.3d 185

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786238

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricky Ray MALONE, Appellant v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 31, 2007
- **Citations:** 168 P.3d 185; 2007 OK CR 34; 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 33; 2007 WL 2460648
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lewis
- **Judges:** Chapel, Johnson, Lumpkin, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 42 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/9786238

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that "avoid arrest or prosecution" and "peace officer ... killed while in performance of official duty" aggravating circumstances clearly established by first stage evidence
- holding lack of Cargle instruction was plain error requiring reversal where testimony was "well beyond" appropriate victim impact evidence, including a "highly prejudicial sentencing recommendation"
- holding lack of Cargle instruction was plain error requiring reversal where testimony was "well beyond" appropriate vietim impact evidence, including a "highly prejudicial sentencing recommendation"
- finding victim impact witness' "invocation of religious belief and obligation in the context of a capital sentencing recommendation is totally inappropriate"

## Opinion text

LEWIS, Judge,
Concur in Part/Dissent in Part.
T1 I concur in affirming Appellant's conviction but dissent to reversing the death sentence. The victim impact testimony in this case was powerful, but it was properly admitted and any error in its admission is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
12 The majority correctly finds that trial counsel rendered deficient performance in failing to investigate mitigation evidence. Considering this omitted mitigation evidence in light of the aggravating circumstances, I see no reasonable probability of a different outeome at trial, and thus no violation of the right 'to effective assistance of counsel. I would affirm the death sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786238. Public record. Not legal advice.