noting the Court has consistently rejected the notion that the ag-gravator is standardless or all-inclusive.
How later courts described this case
- noting the Court has consistently rejected the notion that the ag-gravator is standardless or all-inclusive.
- finding "[t]he State presented circumstantial evidence refuting [Appellant's] statement," and therefore the "trial court did not err in neglecting to sua sponte instruct the jury on exculpatory statements"
- holding that the phrase “that person” in the context of the jury instruction presupposes a living human being
- holding when the State disproves a defendant's statement, the district court commits no error by not submitting an exculpatory statement instruction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
Kelly Lamont Rogers was tried by jury before the Honorable Donald L. Worthington in the District Court of Payne County. In Case No. CRF-412 he was convicted of First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 701.7; he was convicted of First Degree Robbery, 21 O.S.1991, § 801, in CRF-91-26 and CRF-91-27; First Degree Rape, 21 O.S.1991, §§ 1111, 1114, in CRF-91-28; and Larceny of a Motor Vehicle, 21 O.S.1991, § 1720, in CRF-91-29, all after conviction of two or more felonies. The jury found 1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; 2) there was a probability that Rogers would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and 3) Rogers had previously been convicted of a felony involving violence. Rogers was sentenced to death for the murder conviction, fifty years and seventy-five years for each robbery charge respectively, one hundred fifty years for rape, and fifty years incarceration for larceny.
By its January 24,1995, published opinion, this Court affirmed Rogers’ convictions and sentences. Rogers is now before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing, Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch. 18, App. According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall be filed for two reasons only:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument.
Rogers raises one proposition in his Petition for Rehearing which fails to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. Accordingly, this proposition will not be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 8th day of March, 1995.
/s/ Charles A. Johnson
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Presiding Judge
/s/ Charles S. Chapel
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Vice-Presiding Judge
/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge
/s/ James F. Lane
JAMES F. LANE, Judge
/s/ Reta M. Strubhar
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge