finding that evidence regarding defendant's prior conviction for solicitation of murder was admissible other crimes evidence in case charging first-degree murder, where both cases involved plan by defendant to kidnap a victim with whom defendant had some prior dealings, bring victim to property owned by defendant's parents, force victim to sign promissory notes for defendant's benefit, kill victim, and then present the notes to victim's estate for payment
How later courts described this case
- finding that evidence regarding defendant's prior conviction for solicitation of murder was admissible other crimes evidence in case charging first-degree murder, where both cases involved plan by defendant to kidnap a victim with whom defendant had some prior dealings, bring victim to property owned by defendant's parents, force victim to sign promissory notes for defendant's benefit, kill victim, and then present the notes to victim's estate for payment
- finding not plain error under Daubert to admit "scientific procedure for lead composition comparison" of bullets as this type of analysis did not amount "to a novel scientific procedure which would trigger Daubert scrutiny"
- holding also that such strategy did not prejudice Bryan
- Although no Burks notice was filed, Bryan clearly had notice that the State intended to use this evidence well in advance of trial.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurs in result.
I agree with the results reached in the opinion. I write separately on three matters.
First, I once again urge this Court to adopt a unified approach when reviewing claims dealing with the sufficiency of the evidence. See White v. State, 900 P.2d 982, 993-995 (Okl.Cr.1995) (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring).
Second, I write separately to explain why we are addressing a supplemental proposition. Ordinarily, this Court will not address propositions which are not presented in a timely manner in the Appellant’s brief-in-chief. See 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch. 18, App. Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule 3.4(F)(2). However, this Court remanded Appellant’s case pursuant to Cooper v. Oklahoma, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) to determine if a retrospective competency hearing could be held; and, if so, to hold such a hearing using a constitutionally correct burden of proof. Such a hearing was held; and this Court’s course of action is consistent with the scope of our authority set out in Rule 3.11(A).
Third, I do not agree with the Court’s discussion of Supplemental Proposition V. The Court’s decision in Jackson v. State, 811 P.2d 614 (Okl.Cr.1991), is not applicable to the situation presented here. The purpose of discovery is to provide the opposing party matters which may be used at trial and to ensure the party is put on notice of its existence. That was done in this case. The trial judge made the correct ruling.