# Miller v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · August 17, 2001 · 29 P.3d 1077

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796843

## Case

- **Full name:** Jervaughn Warren MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 17, 2001
- **Citations:** 29 P.3d 1077; 2001 OK CR 17; 2001 WL 686946
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lile
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Johnson, Strubhar, Chapel, Lile
- **Cited by:** 17 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/9796843

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding lack of Cargle instruction made it impossible to find errors in admission of prejudicial victim impact testimony were harmless
- emphasizing the Court will "apply a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."
- noting the importance of using the Cargle instructions when victim impact evidence is borderline or crosses over the line of what can be considered permissible.
- discussing Strickland in depth

## Opinion text

LILE, Judge:
Dissents.
T1 I find the trial judge's handling of the victim impact evidence to have been proper. The fact that two of the victim's family members felt the death sentence was the appropriate sentence was properly admitted under 22 0.8.1991, $ 984, which plainly provides for admission of "the victim's opinion of a recommended sentence." The improper amplification of that sentence was not objected to by Appellant's trial counsel and any error was waived. Further, defense counsel did not request a Cargle instruction and any error in that regard is waived, under the facts of this case.
T 2 I believe that the trial judge's handling of Juror Murphy was proper. The trial court offered the attorneys the opportunity to participate in the in camera hearing and that opportunity was declined.
T8 Concerning the issue of incompetency of trial counsel I point out that the trial judge has provided a comprehensive and thorough order setting forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Evi-dentiary Hearing, one of the best I have seen. I agree with its conclusions. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796843. Public record. Not legal advice.