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
LEWIS, Judge,
concurs in results:
T1 I concur in the result in this case affirming the convictions, judgment and sentences, however, I write to address the issue of the jury questionnaire. Based on the responses of the challenged jurors in this case, I agree with the legal analysis as presented by the majority opinion; however, I reserve judgment in other cases instead of agreeing with the statement that the pretrial questionnaire cannot trump the actual voir dire. I am of the opinion that there are some cases in which the jury questionnaire answers could indeed trump voir dire. I am not convinced that the jurors responses in this case standing alone provided cause for their disqualification. I therefore concur in the result reached in this case.