The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge:
concur in part/dissent in part.
1 I coneur in the results reached by the Court and find the sentence of death supported by the law and evidence.
1 2 I do disagree in the Court's decision to invalidate the aggravating cireumstance that Appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person. The opinion uses the methodology of parsing the events into a time and space justification for invalidating the aggravator. This parsing disregards our caselaw that victims killed in the same manner, at the same place, and essentially the same time, presents "a classic example of the 'great risk of death' aggravating circumstance." Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, ¶¶ 106-107 , 100 P.3d 1017, 1047-48 . See also, Eizember v. State, 2007 OK CR 29, ¶ 123 , 164 P.3d 208, 239 .
13 The argument made by Appellant in this case could be made by any defendant charged with multiple homicides, i.e. no one was at risk when he killed the second, third or more victims because the first victim or subsequent victims were already dead. This is a factual decision to be made by the trier of fact. The jury in this case was properly instructed and there are facts in evidence to support their verdict. Therefore, we should honor that principle of law and their application of it in their decision and affirm the great risk of death aggravator. The opinion seeks to invalidate that decision by referring to language from cases where more than one person was not killed but those surviving were placed in a great risk of death situation, so that was the aggravator applied. See Valdez v. State, 1995 OK CR 18, ¶ 69 , 900 P.2d 363, 382 , quoting Snow v. State, 1994 OK CR 39, ¶ 24 , 876 P.2d 291, 297 . This reference ignores the fact that more than one person was actually killed in this case. Thus, the language from Dodd, supra should be applied and the aggravator applied.
14 Regardless of the fact I disagree with the invalidation of the aggravator that the Appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person, I have reviewed the evidence of the remaining aggra-vators, together with the evidence presented in mitigation, and find the sentence of death to be legally and factually supported. Therefore, I concur in the results reached by the Court.