# Duvall v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 28, 1991 · 62 O.B.A.J. 1791

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794418

## Case

- **Full name:** John Wayne DUVALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 28, 1991
- **Citations:** 62 O.B.A.J. 1791; 825 P.2d 621; 1991 OK CR 64; 1991 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 70; 1991 WL 92346
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lane
- **Judges:** Brett, Johnson, Lane, Parks, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 63 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794418

## Opinion text

LANE, Presiding Judge,
concurring in results:
While I agree with the majority’s holding affirming the death sentence in this case, I find several aspects of the majority’s reasoning troublesome.
This Court has had extensive opportunity to analyze the meaning, limitation and application of the aggravating circumstance, heinous, atrocious or cruel. See Stout v. State, 817 P.2d 737 (Okl.Cr.App.1991); Nuckols v. State, 805 P.2d 672 (Okl.Cr.1991); Cartwright v. State, 778 P.2d 479 (Okl.Cr.1989); Nguyen v. State, 769 P.2d 167 (Okl.Cr.1988); Stouffer v. State, 742 P.2d 562 (Okl.Cr.1987); Castro v. State, 745 P.2d 394 (Okl.Cr.1987). If this analysis has taught us anything, it is that extreme precision is necessary in the language we use to both define and limit the application of this aggravating circumstance.
I believe the majority misstates Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions — Criminal No. 436 which first defines and then properly limits the application of this aggravating circumstance. The majority states this instruction “explains heinous, atrocious or cruel to mean those crimes where the death of the victim was preceded by torture of the victim or serious physical abuse.” (majority at 634) (emphasis added).
Careful reading of Instruction No. 436 makes clear that it limits the application of this aggravating circumstance to those crimes where the death of the victim was preceded by torture or serious physical abuse. The instruction defines “heinous” as extremely wicked or shockingly evil; “atrocious” as outrageously wicked and vile; and “cruel” as pitiless, or designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the sufferings of others. While this explication of the text of Instruction No. 436 given to the appellant’s jury does not change the holding of the Court, I believe we must pay extremely close attention to the exact meaning and usage of the words in the jury instruction, *637 particularly when it is the subject of continuing constitutional challenge.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794418. Public record. Not legal advice.