the purpose of the notice requirement is to prevent surprise on the part of the defense
How later courts described this case
- the purpose of the notice requirement is to prevent surprise on the part of the defense
- stating pre-trial questionnaire cannot trump the actual voir dire
- "The ‘passion’ necessary to support a manslaughter instruction must be so great as to ‘render the mind incapable of forming a design to effect death.’ ” (quoting Charm v. State, 924 P.2d 754 , 760 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996))
- noting that the statutory language is readily understandable
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
A. JOHNSON, J.,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
T1 I join Judge Chapel's opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in affirming Eizember's convictions. I also concur in affirming his sentences on Counts I and Counts III through VI. Because jurors admittedly biased toward the imposition of death sat on his jury, however, I eannot affirm his sentence to death. I would remand this case for resentencing on Count II-First Degree Malice Murder.