finding that combination of witnessing friend's shooting followed by being shot oneself and lingering before dying is evidence of heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance
How later courts described this case
- finding that combination of witnessing friend's shooting followed by being shot oneself and lingering before dying is evidence of heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance
- holding that the often difficult decision of which defense to stress during closing argument is necessarily committed to the strategic judgment of defense counsel
- “Standing alone, the 1982 manslaughter conviction had no legal relevance to whether Appellant acted in self-defense in 2001.”
- holding that contemporaneous objections must be made at the time the alleged error is being committed
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by WILLIAMSON v. STATE, 422 P.3d 752 (2018)
¶45 Later when the State sought to introduce the statements, Reece made his contemporaneous objection, thus preserving the issue for review. 12 O.S.2011, § 2104See Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9155 P.3d 796overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15422 P.3d 752see also Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31100 P.3d 1017
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
concur in part/dissent in part.
T 1 I concur in the affirmance of the judgments and sentences in Count 1 and 2, but dissent to the reversal in Count 4. I write separately to address certain points.
2 In section B of the opinion, Rulings on the Admissibility of Evidence, I would direct the reader's attention to Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 11 , 876 P.2d 690 , 695 for the proposition that the failure to raise a timely objection to the admission of evidence waives appellate review for all but plain error review. Also in Proposition II, I note that in Beck v. State, 1991 OK CR 126, ¶ 15 , 824 P.2d 885 , 389 we looked to the common law as well as the Evidence Code for the rules and procedures in admitting evidence of pri- or convictions.
T8 In Proposition III, I agree with the Court that once properly raised the State has the burden to disprove self-defense. However, as the Court recognizes, the State does not have the burden to disprove any lesser included offenses. The State's burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of any lesser included offenses before the defendant can be convicted of a lesser included offense. See Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions Criminal (2d) 10-24.
T4 In Proposition X, I find Appellant's conviction in Count 4 was not barred by double jeopardy. Appellant possessed the weapon on different dates in different counties. Criminal charges could lawfully be brought in both counties, as venue of the crime is a different element in each prosecution. As these were two separate offenses, jeopardy did not attach upon Appellant's conviction in Logan County and his conviction in Oklahoma County was not in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. Accordingly, I would affirm the conviction in Count 4.