holding Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution both require search warrants describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized
How later courts described this case
- holding Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution both require search warrants describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized
- concluding that expert testimony that hair comparison results meant defendant was in victim's house was properly admitted under section 2702
- concluding that whether expert properly performed hair comparison test goes to weight of evidence and is thus a jury question
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring in results:
I concur in the results reached by the majority, including that part of the decision that discusses the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case. However, I do not find that it is now necessary to compare the results of this case with prior decisions and thus perform a proportionality review. I would AFFIRM the trial court.
LUMPKIN, Judge, concurs in result.
I concur that the judgments and sentences in each of the Appellant’s convictions should be affirmed.
While I agree that the Appellant’s allegations of error regarding the issuance and execution of the search warrants are without merit, I cannot join in the Court’s analysis of Appellant’s claims under article II, section 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Court ignores our previous decisions in DeGraff v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 519 , 103 P. 538 (1909), and Long v. State, 706 P.2d 915 (Okl.Cr.1985). In addition, the Court finds that pursuant to the decision in Merry v. State, 766 P.2d 1377 (Okl.Cr.1988), the Aguilar-Spinelli standard must be utilized in reviewing claims of error concerning state constitutional questions concerning search or seizure questions, but then states that “[t]his case does not involve a question concerning the reliability or credibility of an undisclosed informant, such as was presented in the Aguilar and Spinelli cases. See McCann, 504 P.2d at 434; Luker v. State, 504 P.2d 1238, 1240 (Okl.Cr.1972). This claim is meritless.” To ensure a proper review of the issues presented by Appellant the Court should adhere to its previous decisions in DeGraff, Long, Tosh v. State, 736 P.2d 527 (Okl.Cr.1987), Dixon v. State, 737 P.2d 942 (Okl.Cr.1987), Morgan v. State, 738 P.2d 1373 (Okl.Cr.1987), Foster v. State, 742 P.2d 1131 (Okl.Cr.1987), Payne v. State, 744 P.2d 196 (Okl.Cr.1987), and Lister v. State, 758 P.2d 831 (Okl.Cr.1988), and review the allegations of error pursuant to the criteria set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). A review of the allegations of error and evidence in accordance with the Gates standard reveals that the affidavit is sufficient and Appellant’s claims relating to the issuance of the *404 warrants and the subsequent searches are without merit.