# Glossip v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · April 13, 2007 · 157 P.3d 143

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796754

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Eugene GLOSSIP, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 13, 2007
- **Citations:** 157 P.3d 143; 2007 OK CR 12; 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 13; 2007 WL 1099104
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Lewis, Johnson, Lumpkin, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 48 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/9796754

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding prosecutor’s argument Glossip was “guilty of murder, regardless of his defense that he only acted after the fact in attempting to cover up the crime ... [was] properly based on the evidence adduced at trial”
- explaining that aiding and abetting includes “advis[ing] or encourag[ing] the commission of the crime” (quoting Spears v. State, 900 P.2d 431, 438 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995))
- rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel claim where underlying claim did not rise to the level of plain error

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
Concur in Result.
1 I concur in the results reached by the Court and most of the analysis. However, I do disagree with the analysis on a couple of points.
12 First, the Court errs by citing as authority for the decision rendered cases from other states that are not valid precedent for this Court. The jurisprudence from this Court is more than sufficient to sustain the analysis and decision of the Court. Thus, that case law should be cited and not cases from irrelevant states.
1 3 Second, while I agree the trial court's failure to preserve the demonstrative aids for the record in this case was error, I cannot find error in the use of them in this case. These demonstrative aids, ie. poster sheets with contemporaneous listing of accurate statements by witnesses, were nothing more than group note taking. And, this Court has pushed note taking with a missionary zeal. While individual note taking cannot be monitored for individual accuracy, this group note taking was monitored by the court and the accuracy ensured. The notes were not overly emphasized because as demonstrative aides, they were not allowed to be taken into the jury room.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796754. Public record. Not legal advice.