Pickens v. State

PICKENS, Lynn Appellant, Darrin Oklahoma, Appellee.

STATE No. F-90-1180. Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal 25, 1993. March

OPINION

LUMPKIN, Judge: Presiding Lynn Darrin Pickens was tried by jury Robbery and convicted of Firearm, After of a Fel- Former Conviction O.S.1981, (21 801) (Count I); ony Shoot- § Kill, ing with Intent After Former Con- 652) Felony (21 O.S.1981, of a viction § II); Kill, (Count Assault with Intent (21 Felony After Former Conviction of a O.S.1981, 652) (Count III); and Murder § Degree (21 O.S.Supp.1982, the First (Count IV); 701.7) No. Case CF-90- § County. in the District of Tulsa (3) The found existence of three recom- aggravating circumstances and mur- punishment mended death for the fifty and imprisonment der conviction for I; (99) (50) years ninety-nine on Count II; ninety-nine years on Count and III. sen- years on Count The trial court accordingly. judgment tenced From perfected this and sentence has appeal. 8, 1990, February approximately

On Circle K p.m., Appellant robbed the 10:30 Berryhill store on convenience located clerk, Tulsa, The store Road in Oklahoma. (4) times, Wolfe, shot four Tina Sue head. range in the including once at close fatal proved to be gunshot The head dead pronounced Wolfe was and Ms. thirty- Approximately February ($32.00) dol- and three two dollars cash from ($3.00) stamps taken in food lars the store. morning of Feb-

During early hours 1990, Appellant the Circle robbed ruary Tulsa, Okla- 61st and K store at Union shortly the store Appellant entered homa. a.m., pairs purchased two 5:00 after He store. gloves left the cloth and brown De- Conway, Deputy Public Sid Chief later, over jumped a few minutes returned Jackson, fender, Johnson, Denny Loretta Earl Butler told clerk store the counter O’Neal, Defenders, Public Johnie Asst. regis- money in the all he wanted Defender, Tulsa, appellant. Public K plastic Circle Butler filled a Mr. ter. post- stamps and money, Moss, Fries, with the food sack Atty., Dist. Dennis David register. stamps from the Tulsa, age Brimer Atty., Dist. Lov- Asst. Susan me” “You “you seen Gen., initially said haven’t Blaylock, A. Asst. ing, Atty. Diane Changing his anything”. Gen., appellee. seen City, for haven’t Atty. Oklahoma mind, Appellant “I you stated think acknowledged have White. He understanding seen, just you.” Appel- so I’ll to kill rights have but when if sign asked he would times, lant then shot Butler three form, once each Appellant refused, the waiver stating shoulder, Although face and arm. sign. he did not want to Detective wounded, phone Butler reached for the Bishop Dick Deputy Gary Ross from police. called the County the Tulsa Sheriff’s Office entered explained the room and they wanted to Appellant, who had this time exit- Appellant. talk with exchange After an store, ed the returned to shoot Butler insults, Appellant verbal indicated that he again. gun face, pointed With the at his did not want to talk deputies. with the As ground. Appellant Butler fell to the at- deputies subsequently left the inter- tempted (4) times, to shoot four but the room, view Police Sergeant Wayne Allen gun did not fire. Butler Appel- kicked at entered the requested room and blood and lant, threw a trash can at him physical- samples Appellant. hair Sergeant Al- ly struggled with him. When len also removed blood Appel- from the door, headed grabbed towards the Butler body lant’s and clothing. Appellant again him, headlock, put him in a and continued initiated conversation concerning the picked to scuffle. Butler up gun charges and, after answering dropped by this third in- pointed Ap- it at quiry charges him, into the against pellant’s Officer chin. Butler gun clicked the White twice, Appellant asked if there was Appellant got gun before not away him, to, someone he wanted hit to talk him twice in the he was face with it facing some and left the serious Approximately Appellant store. offenses. thirteen ($13.00) indicated cash, dollars that he ($9.00) nine wanted to talk dollars to Ser- geant stamps ($60.00) food Allen. sixty dollars postage stamps was taken from the store. viewing After Ap- waiver form that upon Based Mr. description, Butler's offi- pellant had sign, refused to Ap- Allen took cers from the Tulsa Department Police pellant to his office began question to spotted Appellant Osage Express- on the him robbery about the at the 61st and way gave Ignoring chase. the offi- Allen, Union Circle K store. out of uni- emergency lights, cers’ Appellant fled at a form, Appellant advised po- that he was a high speed. rate of He lost control of the officer, Appellant lice that did not have to twice, car the second time sliding into a him, talk with and that right he had the to chain link Appellant fence. exited the car attorney. Appellant an stated that he attempted to run when he was subdued would long talk with Allen as as he by the officers. with the men from County. Appellant then admitted that he had committed the

Officer Dale White arrived on the scene robbery. explained He that he Appellant person- had ground find on the in prone problems al with the position. store clerk and White that assisted in handcuffing he entered the Appellant, store with the took him intention of police to his unit and killing read the clerk. He Appellant very said he was rights. his mad Appel- Miranda and could help lant made no himself. reply rights which had been read but asked what he being began Allen then robbery discuss the charged with. White told him that at that and murder which had occurred at the Cir- time being charged he was with the armed cle K on Berryhill. Appellant initially de- robbery shooting from the Circle K at being nied ever in the being store. After 61st and Union. Appellant replied “this told that his car night was seen on the White, ain’t shit”. proceeding with the ar- robbery store, at the police had paperwork, rest commented guy pieces parts of car left from where the car who had been shot was Ap- about to die. had dumpster, hit the trash and that a pellant replied that he anyone. had not shot projectile recovered from the scene police station,

Once at the Appellant was matched Union, those found at 61st and again read his rights by Miranda Officer Appellant put his head in his hands and “Goddamit, testimony

said I do that shit. I pre-trial did did taken at the hear- ings shoot that It wasn’t suppress woman twice. even a on the motion and that Appellant hundred dollars.” stated he re- conflicting trial was as to walking membered into the store and see- Appellant whether right invoked his put her store clerk hand to her During pre-trial counsel. hearings, Tulsa gun mouth as she saw the in his hand. County Deputy Gary Sheriffs Ross testi- holding he said that as fied that when he and Bishop Detective hand, gun in his it went off. He did attempted to the Appellant, interview he not remember the clerk was where struck read Appellant rights, his Miranda time, the first but did remember that she Appellant stated did not he wish to talk lying on the last the floor time he shot deputies with the and that he wanted an her. attorney. Ross that all questioning stated Bishop ceased and he and left the room. interview, At the conclusion of this Ser- Officer White testified that he was in the geant again Allen read his Mi- Bishop room when attempted Ross and rights him get randa and told he wanted to talk and that he did not tape. Appellant his statement on refused hear request attorney. an At sign rights form waiver and stated trial, again White testified that he did not that he tape did not want to be recorded. Appellant request hear an attorney. Depu- ty Ross was Ap- not examined whether I. GUILT-INNOCENCE ISSUES pellant invoked his to counsel and Appellant asserts the trial gave therefore testimony no on the issue. denying court erred in sup motion to press the confession as it was pre-trial taken in At the conclusion hear- Arizona, violation ings suppress, Edwards 451 U.S. on the motion to judge motion, (1981). 68 L.Ed.2d 378 overruled finding that Officer Appellant argues confession was White was officer the first to talk with Sergeant made to Appellant, Allen after he in Appellant had that had knowingly right voked his to counsel rights requested to the Tulsa waived his not and an County deputies. attorney; Appellant request did an attorney by representa- when interviewed In Edwards, Supreme the office, tives from the Sheriffs and that held that an who has accused been advised Appellant’s inquiry into the charges rights his and right Miranda invokes his against him reinitiated communications to have present during counsel custodial with effectively the authorities and revoked interrogation subject is to further inter previous request. his rogation by the authorities until counsel accused, has been made record, available to the After a thorough review of the unless the himself accused initiates further we find court properly that the trial found communication, exchange or Appellant conversations invoked right had his to police. Illinois, with the Deputy Smith 469 counsel to It is Ross. evident from 91, 95, 490, 493, U.S. 105 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed.2d the record Appellant’s refusal to talk (1984), representatives the Court stated that this with the from the Tulsa prophylactic County rule two per- embodies distinct in Sheriff’s office directed First, quiries. must sonally courts determine to deputies upon the based actually whether the exchange accused just invoked his heated verbal which had tak- right counsel; second, to if place deputies en accused between the Appel- counsel, right invoked his may courts lant. We also find that the trial court responses admit his to further questioning properly Appellant ruled that thereafter only (a) finding that he initiated further initiated further discussions with Officer police, (b) discussions with the know White. Dep- After the exit of the Sheriff’s ingly uties, and intelligently right waived the Sergeant he Allen’s cleaning of the had invoked. See also Walker v. Appellant, 795 blood from Officer White told (Okl.Cr.1990). P.2d Ap- it was time book him in. Allen, against geant Appellant had been read pellant’s charges into the his inquiry hours, (3) rights (3) him, inquiry in three three times within Miranda three the third hours, with (3) given opportunity communications an to read “re-initiated” further in term police it; grad- sense which that sign form and that he had waiver As stated Ore high school; was used in Edwards. only that the offi- uated Bradshaw, 1045- 462 U.S. gon v. he refused to talk to with were the cers 2830, 2835, 77 L.Ed.2d office; representatives from the Sheriff’s (1983): there was no indication that he and that Although ambiguous, respondent’s under the influence of a controlled case as to what was question in this episode place The entire took substance. willing- going to him a happen evinced approximately Ap- within six hours and generalized for a dis- ness and a desire prejudice did pellant not suffer the which investigation; it was cussion about day lapse occurred the four in inter- necessary inquiry arising merely views condemned Walker out of of the custodial rela- the incidents clearly The record tionship. reasonably been It could have Appellant knowingly shows that and intelli- interpreted relating by officer as gently right waived his to counsel to Ser- generally investigation. Allen, geant who took extreme caution to rights pri- his too, ensure understood Appellant’s inquiry So Further, beginning inquiry. or to reasonably case been his com- could have interpreted by willing- by made Officer White as a ments Officer White investigation facing charges, ness to further discuss the that he was serious his previ- and waive to counsel he had inquiries into whether there was someone ously it invoked. That was so understood Appellant would like to to and talk whether by by both later is evi- White and Allen give did he wanted to his side not consti- denced exhibition White’s of the waiver badgering type questioning tute nor the by Appellant form refused re- and Allen’s which would render the confession involun- peated he reminders tary. police officer, uniform, although out of Accordingly, we find that sufficient evi- that he did not have to talk him and Ap- dence was show attorney. that he had the to an pellant knowingly intelligently waived As there no violation rights and understood conse- case, inquiry rule in Edwards the next quences. Therefore, will not disturb is right “whether a waiver valid of the ruling permitting of the the trial court the counsel and the silence had oc of a introduction confession. v. Jeffries curred, is, that purported whether the State, 846, P.2d 679 850 knowing waiver and intelligent was and found totality to be so under the Appellant contends his next as circumstances, including necessary the fact signment of error that trial court the erred accused, police, reopened that the not the admitting 25, 26, State’s Nos. Exhibits dialogue the the Oregon authorities.” 28-31, depicting wounds slides the suffered Bradshaw, 1046, v. 462 U.S. at 103 at S.Ct. During by Tina Sue Wolfe. an in-camera 2835, 413, 77 quoting L.Ed.2d Edwards hearing, by each slide was described the Arizona, (citation omitted). v. The deter examining Distefano, pathologist, Dr. and upon mination depends particular the facts by objected the reviewed court. surrounding case, and circumstances the of It is the admission each slide. well including background, experience the and admissibility photo that of settled the conduct of the accused. North Carolina graphs the is matter within trial court’s Butler, 369, 374, 1755, 441 U.S. 99 S.Ct. discretion. Absent an of that abuse discre 1758, (1979). 60 286 L.Ed.2d tion, this Court will not reverse the trial State,

The shows ruling. record that at the time court’s Nuckols v. 690 P.2d he 463, waived (Okl.Cr.1984) denied, counsel before Ser- 470 471 cert. it 1030, 2050, being recorded as committed is 85 L.Ed.2d be was

U.S. properly pre- relevant evidence which was (1985). O.S.1981, jury. See 12 sented depicted present in the case The slides Therefore, error in the we find no § by Ms. gunshot four wounds suffered the assign- of this and this admission the of Exhibit No. With exclusion Wolfe. is of error denied. ment 27, any of the duplication was no there Appellant also that it contends Photographs the or slides slides. error for the trial court to admit into.evi have by suffered a murder victim wounds 51, 53, 52, No. dence State’s Exhibits State, 736 held admissible. Moore v. been reports prepared by firearm exam ballistic denied, (Okl.Cr.1987), cert. O.S.1981, Raska. iner Richard Title 12 98 L.Ed.2d 484 U.S. S.Ct. 2803(8), specifically the admis prohibits § (1987). pictures grue fact are The reports investigative sion into evidence of photo not of cause the some does itself hearsay enforcement personnel law as pres in the graphs to be As inadmissible. evidence. The intent of this restriction is case, probative photo ent the value preclude investigative reports the use of murder can be manifest graphs of victims testimony. in lieu of live In the ways, including showing the numerous ed case, it is not clear record wheth from the extent, wounds, nature, and location of reports actually er the were admitted into corroborating the testi medical examiner’s Assuming they arguendo that evidence. concerning mony cause of death. harmless, admitted, any as were error is (Okl. Thompson v. 724 P.2d subject cross- Raska testified Cr.1986); Robison 677 P.2d Further, them reports examination. (Okl.Cr.1984). Accordingly, we find selves, technical documentation of test re probative of the slides out value sults, to his merely were at best cumulative any prejudice Appellant and weighed Ap testimony. Accordingly, we find not an discretion for that it was abuse of reports prejudiced by pellant was trial court to the slides into evi admit assignment of error is denied. dence. into evi The State also introduced alleges that further sunglasses pair dence a ski mask and a in admitting trial court erred into evidence Appellant’s the time of car at discovered tape the 911 made of Mr. Butler’s call for Although during the introduced his arrest. help robbery of the 61st trial, did not stage of the evidence first forty- approximately Union store. stage of relevant until the second become tape, second Mr. Butler is heard five argues the admission trial. help being calling immediately after stage during the first of this evidence by Appellant. the first shot time evidence of improper introduction of an phone open lines remained as it im prejudicial, crimes and other his as re-entered store and continued Appel plicitly informed on Mr. the screams sault Butler. While find While we lant was a habitual robber. emanating Appellant from Mr. Butler as probative value of the evidence admittedly re-entered the store are disturb stage slight, of fail to see the first trial we tape inadmissi ing, Appellant prejudiced. this does render the The claim how tape; spe by them probative sunglasses, The of the ski mask and ble. value selves, is an other crimes cifically, its of Mr. Butler’s are of corroboration apparent only counsel. implication to defense testimony, and its actu illustration of what State, 1042 horney v. Ma 664 ally place during took the commission of (Okl.Cr.1983). offense, any prejudice far outweighed conduct, Appellant. By to the his own II. RELATING ISSUES Appellant created the situation and deter TO PUNISHMENT mined the manner in which the crime was trial, stage circumstance During committed. fortuitous the second of of sought prove crime to the existence which allowed the sounds of the State circumstances; 1) must also note that evidence addi- aggravating three the We previously convicted of felo- prior defendant was tional to the convictions used involving the use or threat of violence nies continuing support threat circum- 2) person; the murder was commit- incorporated stance. The State all of the purpose avoiding prevent- of ted for the stage stage first evidence into the second 3) prosecution; arrest or lawful of trial and evidence of a first probability there that the defen- exists degree charge against Appel- murder filed criminal acts of vio- dant would commit County lant Creek and his confession to continuing lence that constitute a would offense; together Detective Ho- with society. eighth assignment In threat to his gan’s testimony concerning Appellant’s error, ag- Appellant of contends that the lack of remorse for the offenses on trial. gravators “prior felony” of violent “continuing upon threat” relied same error, assignment In next of his evidence, thereby “skewing weighing Appellant videotaped asserts that the con process” denying him a reliable sen- County fession to the Creek murder was tencing proceeding. improperly admitted in violation of his Use of the same evidence in rights Fifth and Sixth Amendment to coun support aggrava different manners to two Appellant compares sel. this case to Min ting necessarily circumstances does not 146, Mississippi, nick v. U.S. S.Ct. aggravating make the two into one circum 486, (1990), 112 L.Ed.2d 489 wherein State, 364, Berget stance. 824 P.2d v. 376 Supreme Court held that once an accused State, In 713 P.2d Green counsel, requests interrogation cease, must (Okl.Cr.1985), denied, cert. 479 U.S. may interroga and officers not reinitiate 871, 241, (1986), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 165 present, tion without counsel whether or adopted reasoning Supreme not the accused has consulted with his at in Delap Florida 440 torney. (Fla.1983), ag So.2d 1242 found that case, present Appellant invoked gravating only duplica- are circumstances inquiry by his to counsel as they tive aspect when cover the same County Deputies, Tulsa Sheriff's then sub- history. the defendant’s criminal sequently revoked that election Febru- Here prior the State relied on three 9, 1990, ary speaking when to Tulsa Police felony support convictions to both of these Officer White. The record shows that However, aggravators. the convictions appointed counsel was made aspect were not used to show the same appearance his initial before the District Appellant or his crime. As we stated in County Court of Tulsa on March (Okl.Cr. Smith v. 819 P.2d On March was inter- 1991): County viewed in the Creek Sheriff’s Office prior felony The circumstance of violent robbery about a and murder which oc- aspect shows of a defendant as a February curred at a convenience store on incorrigible person violent and whose County Larry 1990. Creek Detective act, conjunction viewed in Fugate testified that the interview oc- conduct, past appropriately can be arraign- curred while awaited punished only by imposing the ultimate County charges. ment on the Creek He hand, sanction. theOn other the con- stated that he read his Miranda tinuing goes threat circumstance rights, Appellant indicated that he under- aspect protection of the need for of soci- them, rights, stood those chose to waive ety probable from defendant’s future signed effect, a waiver to that and then Although jury conduct. must of ne- County confessed to the Creek offenses. cessity past consider the defendant’s con- No evidence was as to whether arriving prediction, duct in at its this Appellant represented past by does not make his and future as- was counsel in pects County charges. the same. the Creek distinguishable was cumulative to Allen’s to the present

The case is extent aspects Appellant in that had not ex- that she described certain of the Minnick However, deal with the authorities interview. the focus of her testi- pressed a desire to Appellant previ- mony Appellant’s demeanor and a con- only through counsel. had gave ously voluntarily, intelligently and know- versation had with after he expressed ingly by talking to counsel the confession wherein he a lack waived Sergeant Allen. He then of remorse for his actions and indicated with waived right again by talking nothing wrong. Detective Fu- that he had done presented to gate. No evidence has been Hogan’s testimony We find Detective rel- erred this Court to show that the trial court part evant and admissible as a of the sen- County admitting in the Creek statement tencing proceeding. Lack of remorse is an voluntarily, intelligently, given and appropriate consideration for the in knowingly. stage capital the second of a trial. Evi- argues pertinent further that the video- dence of lack of remorse is to a taped finding continuing was admitted in violation that the defendant is a confession ruling society. threat to of this Court’s See Fowler v. Walker disagree probative 795 P.2d at 1065. We and find P.2d The distinguish outweighed any prej- that the of this case so it value of this evidence facts Therefore, inapplicable. Appellant. In udice to the as to render this as- Walker appointed signment the defendant had been of error is denied. Walker County charges counsel in Tulsa which error, assignment In his ninth originally Rogers County mur- included alleges that the trial court failed der. Counsel had informed law enforce- guidelines to abide of Brewer v. ment officials that he was to be contacted (Okl.Cr.1982), State, 650 P.2d 54 for the prior any questioning of the defendant proving procedures to be used in that the or the removal of the defendant to another previously defendant was convicted of county. Prior to the interview with the felony involving the use or threat of vio authorities, Rogers County the defendant Brewer, person. lence to the In attorney. asked to see his Counsel could capital held that in all cases wherein the not be located and the defendant confessed ag alleged has the existence of the State Rogers County murder. The video- gravating circumstance that the defendant taped confession then admitted previously felony convicted of a involv stage Rogers County first of the trial as ing the use or threat violence proof guilt. of the defendant’s given the person, the defendant must be case, present only Appel- In the had personally stipulate opportunity to counsel, lant waived his but the felony alleged prior conviction did involve gave confession he was to a murder and person. the use or threat of violence to the robbery County in Creek and was admitted for the defendant must not be Counsel during stage the second of the Tulsa Coun- stipulate him. allowed to so ty proof aggravating trial as circum- procedure set forth Brewer was “continuing stances of threat” and “avoid- not followed this case. did Accordingly, lawful arrest”. we find stipulation. attorney enter into the His no error in the admission of the Creek objection stipulation entered the without County statement and find that it rele- prosecutor. from the Court or the Even jury’s vant for the consideration case, though defense counsel in the during sentencing phase of trial. defendant, stipula- not the offered the prior robbery in- assignment his next of error tion that the convictions violence, principles Appellant objects Hogan’s to Detective tes volved the threat of purpose timony asserting prejudicially that it was were not violated. The Brewer Hogan Appellant’s procedure cumulative. set forth in Brewer observed behind the Sergeant confession to Allen and took was to allow a defendant to enter into a testimony stipulation preclude 338

ducing underlying prove aggrava- of the facts of could have been used to the evidence showing of or prior prior the convictions the use ting felony; circumstance of violent Here, person. to the the threat of violence failing the trial court erred in and that put any of the the State did However, jury. the this so instruct error is convictions, prior underlying of the facts to cause modification not sufficient a of merely copies certified of the but offered any imposed, impact the sentences as its of Therefore, Ap- judgments sentences. and light in remaining was harmless of the two prejudiced by pellant was the admission convictions for violent felonies. valid Mil underlying prior of of the convic- the facts State, (Okl.Cr. ler v. P.2d personal approval. his This tions without 1981). assignment error is denied. of assignment In his next of error alleges as in his tenth Appellant contends that the trial court signment of error that two of the three failing respond to a erred note sent prior prior prove used to convictions the jury during asking, from the deliberations aggravator from the felony violent arose effect, Citing whether the sentences would run same to Miller event.1 (Okl.Cr.1984), concurrently consecutively. ar P.2d The trial jury gues improper that it for responded up the is “sentencing court have been of the second transac informed court”. decision whether run a Miller, tional In conviction. this concurrently or defendant’s sentences con O.S.1981, 51(B), held that under con § secutively rests within discretion the sound out arising of the same transac victions of court. the trial Sherrick tion, only prior one conviction can be used (Okl.Cr.1986). Therefore, purposes. for enhancement Miller does response appropriate. the trial court’s principle aggra proof not extend this of Further, disagree Appellant’s we con with cases, vating capital circumstances in nor response, the clusion that court’s con party any authority does either cite for junction with the denial of instruc certain contrary, such an To extension. defense, by requested tions contributed find 51 is a Legislative that Section enact constitutionally to a unreliable sentence. applies only ment which to the enhance opinion, As further in the discussed punishment ment of of second subse jury thoroughly instructed as to the quent regular felony offenses cases. appropriate procedures law and to be fol case, In di sentencing Appellant. lowed in Ac upon rection of trial court and based assignment this error cordingly, of is de defense, objection by for conviction nied. Possession a Shotgun Sawed-off page removed from the second assignment of the infor thirteenth of er However, mation. documentation specific ror in claims that three evidence, conviction was introduced into firmities which occurred second along prior with that two other stage of trial necessitate a of his vacation its jury, convictions. In instructions to the First, death sentence. he contends that the neglected jury the trial court to direct the aggravating “continuing circumstance of as prior to the use of the convictions. unconstitutionally vague ap threat” is plied given that the instructions Accordingly, we prior find that the con- adequately failed to channel the sen- viction for of a Possession Sawed-off Shot- gun tencer’s has properly could not have been used to discretion. enhance Appellant’s assault, preserved appellate sentences rob- issue for review as kill, bery, shooting with proposed jury intent to but he two submitted instruc- 55, 57, Appellant's State’s Nos. robbery Exhibits 58 and 60 showed out of convenience prior shotgun, convictions in Case CRF Sa- Nos. store the use of a sawed-off lólo, Firearm, Robbery imposed CRF 84- the sentences for each conviction were Shotgun, Possession of a Sawed-off arose to run concurrent.

339 However, specific mitigating have teen factors were court.2 we tions to the upheld aggra then listed. analyzed and previously circumstance, specific, not finding it

vating stage the Reading second instructions as readily Boltz understandable. vague, and whole, jury it is not a clear that 1117, (Okl.Cr.1991); State, P.2d 1125 v. 806 disregard any mitigating told to evidence. 324, (Okl. State, 334 758 P.2d v. Munson fact, In it have an inaccurate would been 1025, State, Cr.1988); 702 P.2d Liles jury of the law to instruct the statement (Okl.Cr.1985); VanWoundenberg v. 1031 mitigating that it “must” consider the evi- (Okl.Cr.1986). are State, We 720 P.2d 328 to reduce the blame as presented dence position. to alter that persuaded now away jury that take from the its would duty make to an individualized determina- in argues further appropriate punishment. Fur- tion lan structing jury permissive in the ther, contrary Appellant’s argument, to are guage mitigating circumstances properly find that the trial court excised “may as exten considered” those which be specific mitigating factors4 from the three reducing degree of blame uating or jury list as there no submitted mandatory language using instead of alleged to support these jury of “must considered” allowed the be mitigators. dis disregard mitigating We evidence.3 to Finally, Appellant error in finds agree. give to an instruction that the the failure jury a rule that It is well established a jury option to return life sentence had must read as a whole instructions be regardless findings respecting aggra of its State, 739 P.2d in isolation. Redden v. vating mitigating circumstances. 536, (Okl.Cr.1987); Luckey 538 (Okl.Cr.1986), State, 723 P.2d Walker v. ap- This denied U.S. rt. ce plies stage of a to the second instructions (1986), appellant 93 L.Ed.2d as well as the instructions bifurcated trial give his error in the refusal claimed In the in a trial. non-bifurcated “jury nullifica requested instruction on instruction, case, in addition to above jury’s as “the exercise of tion”. Defined law jury also instructed that the ‘power bring in a its verdict inherent mitigating cir- sets forth “certain minimum in both the law and [acquittal] the teeth of guidelines you cumstances shall follow as ”, most courts have facts’ we found that determining impose. which sentence” is not enti uniformly held that defendant jury “you The was further informed that also tled to such an instruction. See Wil any all the minimum shall consider or (Okl. 812 P.2d liamson v. you find mitigating circumstances which Cr.1991). no omission We find error of this apply to the facts and circumstances case. the instant of this instruction need jury they The told that case.” assignment of er In his specifi- fourteenth not limit their consideration ror, that the trial court mitigating may con- contends cally listed factors and in- rejecting requested jury his erred in mitigating additional evidence. Six- sider of this case. Appellant’s Proposed No. under the facts and circumstances Instruction 27 direct- 2. background, 256) Appellant’s (O.R. ed look him, . attempts of re- to rehabilitate show "any other reasonable basis which morse may help you by Ap- requested mitigating three factors 4.The probability”. Proposed determine 17) pellant were: the trial court and excised "society”. 28 defined term Instruction No. [Appellant] accepted responsibility for these has (O.R. 193, 194) confessing; through his as crimes demonstrated 18) disprove [Appel- State has failed to entirety: Mitigat- Instruction No. 8 reads its youth as child con- environment lant's] which, ing are those in fairness circumstances case; 19) The State to his actions in this tributed extenuating mercy, may be as or considered large society disprove will has failed reducing degree culpability or of moral [Appellant] adequately protected is sen- if mitigat- be blame. The determination of what are (O.R. 196) you jurors parole. life tenced to without circumstances is for to resolve miti- regarding struction that the decision der extreme emotional mental distur- gating need not unani- circumstances be at the bance time of the offense. We fur- argues that mous. this violated reject Appellant’s argument ther that fail- Maryland, the dictates of 486 U.S. Mills v. give requested ure to instruction vio- 367, 1860, (1988), L.Ed.2d 384 302, Penny Lynaugh, lated U.S. Carolina, McKoy U.S. and v. North 2934, (1989). In S.Ct. 106 L.Ed.2d 256 Pen- (1990). 108 L.Ed.2d 369 S.Ct. Supreme ry the Court held that under the argument This same was addressed “special capital sentencing Texas issues” rejected in Stiles 829 P.2d procedure, the of in- absence instructions argu- again reject We forming jury it that could consider and ment, referring to our decision in Stiles give mitigating to the effect evidence of wherein we stated: the defendant’s mental retardation and In McKoy, Supreme both Mills and prevented background jury abused unanimity requirement held that a taking from into consideration all of his concerning mitigating re- circumstances mitigating evidence. constitutionally sulted in a infirm death However, neither sentence. decision contrast, only capital In do not sentenc- mandated a trial court instruct a ing proceedings in Oklahoma differ from capital sentencing unanimity jury that is Texas, jury present those in but the in the required juror not con- before each can prevented any way case was not in from particular mitigating sider a circum- taking mitigating into consideration all evi- stance. Because the instructions and presented. jury dence The specifically was in present verdict forms case did instructed that it as consider miti- require unanimity regarding mitigating gating specific circumstances several in- circumstances, they reasonably nor could Appel- stances of trauma in emotional interpreted such, have require been life, including the lant’s emotional trauma jury we hold that the precluded by the girlfriend suffered deaths of his considering any of the mitigating friend; best that he formed few emotional proffered appellant. evidence by childhood, bonds he lived Appellant further tri contends the single parent home, in poverty with no al court in rejecting requested erred his income; stable source of and that he was in jury 14, 15, instructions Nos. 19. educationally mentally an handicapped Requested 14, Appellant Instruction No. classroom in When school. considered with jury asked that the be instructed concern the other on mitigating instructions circum- mitigation.5 his mental state as stances, jury give trial was able to full con- properly rejected court this instruction there no sup mitiga- sideration all evidence offered port the claim that the un- tion. Requested Jury Defense bility prison, any you Instructions at issue or other factor which read as follows: may may any- wish to You consider. consider Requested 14: thing goes Instruction No. You are background instruct- which to the of the indi- mitigating ed that vidual, circumstance crime, any circumstances Defendant was under the influence of extreme you might mitigation other factor choose in or mental or applied emotional disturbance is to a mercy. who, insane, person while not has more than Requested Instruction No. 19: You are instruct- average applies the emotion of a person man. It considering punishment ed that when that life who, legally while answerable his for imprisonment imprisonment means life. actions, may deserving mitigation be of some penalty You are instructed that death means sentence because of his mental state. put that the Defendant be will to death. You Requested Instruction Mitigating No. 15: cir- parole are also instructed life without cumstances are those circumstances which in peniten- means that the Defendant will be in the mercy, fairness and be should considered tiary possibility parole. for all his life with no you determining They one’s fate. are circum- You should draw no other conclusion concern- background, stances about an individual's ing punishment than what is stated in this in- itself, family, alcohol, the crime the use of struction. drugs, illness, adapta- mental or defendant’s misstate sympathy; appeals for victim

Further, Requested Instruc as to evidence; ju minimization of the ments of rejection in its find no error No. we tion assessing penalty; the death ror’s role part, in the most given, it as was in miti disregard evidence requests 12. Simi Nos. 9 and in Instructions alleged misstate gation. Most of these rejection of no error in the larly, find trial, ments, stages were in both made 19, defining the Instruction No. Requested the de timely objections from met with It is suffi punishments available. possible Many objections were sus of these fense. jury, as in to inform cient tained, cured. See any thus error was case, punishments which possible (Okl.Cr. State, 597 756 P.2d Shepard v. attempts impose. Any further they could 1988). imprison life defining meaning the of parole inappropriately life without ment or thorough very Appellant provided has the issue of attention on jury’s the focuses argument and we support of his brief proper con is not parole, an issue which transcript page ref- specific appreciate sentencing determina in their sideration authority. supporting case erences 738, 740 751 P.2d tion. Miller v. meticulously every claim reviewed We have by Ap- misconduct raised prosecutorial of However, neces- find it is not

pellant. and have recite that review here sary to MISCONDUCT III. PROSECUTORIAL allegations only certain selected therefore prosecutorial mis- alleges that for discussion. stages of trial. occurred at both conduct pros- that the Initially, Appellant asserts thirty Appellant asserts that over Initially, during voir improperly commented ecutor prose- allegedly reversible instances of right to remain the defendant’s dire on during the cutorial misconduct occurred reflects that the at trial. The record silent stage argues trial. He first of po- the attempted explain prosecutor impermissible took the form of misconduct possessed rights the various jurors tential to testi- Appellant’s on comments defendant, including the by a criminal trial; the deterrent val- fy at comments on any present evi- silent and to remain requests sym- penalty; for ue of the death The trial court during the trial. dence victims; personal giving of pathy for the objec- Appellant’s repeated the overruled derogatory Appellant’s guilt; opinions of tions. counsel, her directed at defense comments making objections credibility; strategy and prosecutor to for the “It is error from ex- prevented defense counsel

which directly indirectly comment—either —at po- determining if a plaining mitigation or upon the defendant’s any stage of trial — it; preventing juror consider tential would State, 560 silent.” right to remain Hanf v. exploring jurors’ atti- counsel from defense (Okl.Cr.1977). In v. 207, McGaha P.2d higher per- the blacks and tudes towards (Okl.Cr.1971), this State, 492 P.2d 1101 row; misstating on death centage of blacks where the in a situation held that law; speculate as to asking jury the the behalf, testify in his own failed to accused evidence; pros- stating that the not in facts Chapman v. of harmless error doctrine jury would ecution was confident California, 386 U.S. stage giving personal reach the second (1967), apply where would L.Ed.2d 705 punishment; opinion appropriate possibility that no reasonable there is Appellant’s char- improperly injecting might have contrib complained of comment stage into the first of trial. acter v. also Stout the conviction. See uted to (Okl.Cr.1984); trial, 693 P.2d stage Appel- of During the second Tulsa, Young City following constituted argues lant State, 249 P. (Okl.Cr.1977); improper ques- Williams misconduct: prosecutorial (1926). the com While witnesses; improper 35 Okl.Cr. tioning of defense dangerous comes case argu- ment strategy; comments on defense trial of these con- record; causing a reversal ly close to scope exceeding the ments trial, victions and a compared new when Contrary Appellant’s argu exceptional ments, against amount of evidence these improperly comments did not Appellant, speculate we find it did not ask the contribute on the evidence. description conviction and is therefore harmless the victims’ reactions error. upon was based at trial put Tina Sue Wolfe her up hand to her alleges further face when she first saw with the stage closing argument first prosecutor gun, point that she was range shot at blank improperly appealed sympathy for the falling ground behind the counter eight (8) victims. pages In the of tran- dying but not instantly, and statements script by Appellant, cited prosecutor Appellant to Mr. Butler that he would have attempted to describe the offenses from to shoot him because he had seen him. viewpoint of the victims and referred to “the through complains horror that went Earl also Ed- about the prosecutor’s ward Butler’s use of the staring mind when he’s term down “execution” to the gun”, shooting face of that “that describe the of same horror Ms. Wolfe. The that Earl evidence through, Edward Butler showed that Ms. went Wolfe was shot head, you heard, that once in Tina the at going range. Sue Wolfe was close As the prosecutor’s through argument at that time”. The reasonably defense en- upon evidence, tered a based contemporaneous objection the to each we find no error. of complained Vaughn State, 769, the statements See also appeal, of on v. 497 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1972) objection and each 771 (upholding was overruled. use of term “assassination”). improper It is prosecu for the During description of Mr. But jurors tion to ask sympathy to have ler’s actions during robbery, the prose the State, 350, victims. Tobler v. 688 P.2d 354 picked cutor up gun pretended the (Okl.Cr.1984). However, prosecution, the fire it. Mr. Butler testified that Appel the defense, as well as the right has the counter, lant leaned over the pointed the fully discuss standpoint from their the evi gun attempted twice, at him and to fire but dence, and the inferences and deductions gun only the clicked. As the record does arising State, therefrom. Carol v. 756 not any improper reflect handling of the 614, (Okl.Cr.1988). P.2d 617 In Peters v. gun, prosecutor’s and as the actions were State, 1386, 727 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1986), 1388 upon evidence, based the we find the con robbery dangerous with a weapon prosecu duct was within the wide argu latitude of tion, upheld we references that permitted mentation during closing argu could consider what may the victim have State, ment. 943, See Grant v. 703 P.2d thinking

been gun pointed as the (Okl.Cr.1985). 945 her. We stated that as fear was an ele trial, ment of the offense on such referenc prose contends that the Further, es proper. were references to the personal cutor stated his opinion and “in “unimaginable terror” of the victims jurors were flamed by telling them that the upheld State, in Nguyen 167, v. spectators 769 P.2d were jurors to see the (Okl.Cr.1988) 925, cert. denied 492 justice U.S. render by convicting the Defend 3264, (1989). S.Ct. 106 L.Ed.2d 609 ant”.6 While we do not condone counsel’s Gentlemen, you 6. Ladies and charged will be wrong. what is and what is Ladies and job deciding with the of whether or not the gentlemen, you look out here in the courtroom defendant, Pickens, Lynn guilty Darrin is you people, you see all your- these ask your these job, crimes. It will be ladies and selves, why they they doing are here? What are gentlemen, just to determine what is and what is they doing Judge here? What Beasley's are injust, what wrong. is and what is Be- Well, gentlemen, courtroom? ladies and I sub- today, gentlemen, cause you ladies and sit in the me, you they’re they’re mit to not here to see powerful position have, you’ll most ever They're here to see defense counsel. not even possibly anybody ever can. You will de- here to see they're David Moss. But here to see Pickens, cide Lynn the fate of Darrin the defen- you justice, gentlemen. and see ladies and Be- dant. just injust, You will decide what is or Further, punishment. spectators, propriate light the role of the we references to explicit given argument equivalent do instructions not find sec- stage, nothing held to ond in the those in other cases which have court’s conduct playing as improper prejudicial be can be the jury said to have diverted inflaming passions Caldwell, as responsibility.” societal alarm or its “awesome jury. v. prejudices of the See Jones 472 U.S. at 105 S.Ct. at 2640. State, (Okl.Cr.1980). The 610 P.2d of the The remainder comments duty jurors focused on of the comments complained previously and not of as error upon render a verdict serve and based discussed, in the first and both second convey It mes- evidence. did stages trial, have been reviewed and we sage find they must are unable to conclude remarks guilty on emotional reaction. Moore based adversely prejudicial were so as to affect v. 736 P.2d impartiality the fundamental fairness and Turning stage to the second of tri proceedings. of the Harris al, Appellant prosecutor contends 1359, 1362(Okl.Cr.1989). When deter Mississippi, violated U.S. Caldwell mining prosecutor’s closing whether a re (1985), 86 L.Ed.2d 231 prej marks were outside the record and so jurors’ minimize the role in sought to reversal, udicial as to warrant a error is penalty assessing the death with such re light be considered executioners”, “you’re marks not the and whether the remarks can be said you “... don’t have to but live with against ap verdict have influenced the you’re going to him. decision that execute State, pellant. Thornton P.2d killing him. You’re not. You’re (Okl.Cr.1983). Allegations prosecu- of executing him”. You’re not These com torial not cause misconduct should a rever response closing ments made in were to judgment sal of or modification of sentence argument by the defense and the charac unless their cumulative effect is such as to closing terization of the State’s that “he a fair deprive defendant of trial and the you anyway.” wants to execute him proceeding. sentencing fair See Williams prime The jury responsibility has the for deciding penalty whether the death should here. Such was not the case imposed. be must be We cautious to avoid singled by comments out While certain any which actions or directions would tend exceed the of appear to bounds to jurors’ responsibility reduce the sense of isolation, in argument fair considered when for the their decision. Caldwell Su- closing in of the entire when read context preme stated that the constitution argument, they re- become reasonable prohibits imposition penalty of a death marks, evidence, upon the and did based which a a rests on “determination made fair deprive Appellant of a trial. has led to that sentencer who been believe showing of a bad faith record reveals no responsibility determining ap- attempt nor an inten- prejudice propriateness of the defendant’s death collateral emphasis upon tional matters. 320-30, rests elsewhere.” Id. U.S. at persuaded As we the chal- are not When in S.Ct. at 2633-40. read iso- lenged seriously affected the fair- remarks lation, prosecutor’s in in- remarks trial, assignment of ness of error is this stant case would seem to violate Caldwell. denied. However, read the en- when context of However, compelled tire it closing argument, is clear that the we are advise the prosecutor responding very his comments came argu- prosecutor Reviewing any causing ment second trial. of defense counsel did not in close entirety in their way jury in an comments attempt mislead the to insu- conduct and great weight of comparison late them from their decision or diminished and against Appellant, responsibility ap- their evidence we determining the (Tr. 636-637) today, gentlemen, you jus- cause ladies and are tice.

are able to find that his conduct does meet mer Felony Conviction of a AF- are beyond the standard of harmless error a FIRMED. so, In doing point

reasonable doubt. JOHNSON, V.P.J., LANE, J., a mystery out that it remains to this Court concur. why prosecutors presenting involving cases overwhelming guilt, of such CHAPEL, J., specially concurs. one, persist argument this in borderline CHAPEL, Judge, concurring: specially precariously comes which close snatch- I specially concur in I this case because jaws victory. a reversal out of the of police find appellant’s obtained given More consideration should be for- confession in violation of his to coun- mulating strategy a trial that will ensure a sel, but, of overwhelming because evi- conviction, trial, once obtained at will meet of I guilt, dence find the error harmless. appellate requirements review. This type preparation strategy explain of trial To will the constitutional violation at admirably requires more fulfil the issue oath of office and brief review the facts. serve the When Dale especially appel- citizens of Officer White arrested lant, appellant the victims of criminal he offenses. read his Miranda warn-

ings, if Ap- and asked he wished to talk. pellant respond, did not but later asked IV. MANDATORY SENTENCE charges against White what the him were. REVIEW White he charged robbery. said O.S.Supp.1987, Pursuant to 21 701.- § Appellant responded by saying, ain’t “This 13(C), (1) we must determine whether the shit.” appellant White told his response imposed sentence of death was under the “pretty guy cold-blooded” and “the passion, prejudice any influence other die.” about to arbitrary factor, the evi- whether appellant sitting While White and were supports jury’s finding dence of an car, patrol in White’s a number of officers aggravating circumstance as enumerated up asked, came car “is that the O.S.1981, in 21 Having 701.12. reviewed § County?” killer from Tulsa At point, record, say we cannot appellant again asked White what by passion, prejudice, influenced any or charges against him were. White him told arbitrary contrary other factor to 21 charged he was to robbery, be with armed 701.13(C). O.S.Supp.1987, The jury § shooting, alluding and arrest. (3) aggrava- found the existence of three appellant White ting circumstances; 1) police drove sta- the defendant was tion and escorted him the previously to intake room. involving convicted felonies room, In the appellant intake read the use or threat White person; of violence to the 2) warnings. Appellant his Miranda refused murder was pur- committed for the sign to pose rights the waiver of form. Officers avoiding or preventing lawful Bishop prosecution; and Officer Ross then 3) arrest entered and there exists a room, appellant probability read his Miranda warn- the defendant would com- ings, they and told him mit criminal wanted to talk. acts of violence that would appellant Ross stated continuing said he constitute “wanted society. threat to attorney, to see an We find did not wish to talk with aggravating these circum- interrogation stopped. us.” The were supported by stances sufficient evi- O.S.1981, 701.12(4). dence. § At point shortly some after this encoun- ter, Wayne Officer Accordingly, finding Allen entered the room no warranting error to modification, appellant. recover reversal or blood White judgments and stated that Allen Murder; finishing up for as Degree sentences First with Rob- appellant, bery Firearm, White: with a After Former Convic- tion of a Felony; Shooting with Intent up, to stood [appellant] walked over to Kill, After said, Former a Felony; Conviction of go get you let’s booked He in. Kill, Assault with Intent to After For- being wanted know to what he was again expressed I him

charged again. police with told his desire to deal with with, only through counsel, charged subject at is not what he was least to fur- interrogation by ther the authorities until the third time. him, counsel has been made available to said, to off I isn’t As we started walk unless the accused himself initiates further you anybody there want to talk to? I communication, exchanges, or conversa- said, you’re facing pretty heavy some Id. 484-485, tions.” U.S. S.Ct. said, charges. you And I don’t want to at 1885. said, give your yeah, it? side of He I’d Supreme Court addressed what con just like to talk to that officer that was stitutes initiation of communication with here. Bradshaw, in Oregon v. police 462 U.S. appel- Allen Officer returned to talk with (1983). 103 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d 405 lant. Allen asked White if he had read Bradshaw, In the defendant invoked his Miranda appellant warnings, right to counsel. While the defendant was ap- White advised he had. Allen escorted being county transferred jail, to he asked pellant to his office where Allen advised “ ‘Well, going the officer happen what is to appellant he did not have to talk him ” to me now?’ The officer told the defen attorney. Appel- and he had a to an dant that he did not have talk him you lant cut Allen off and said “I told that since attorney any he had asked for an you long you’re I talk to would as product statements had to be a of his free guys county.” with those from the Allen responded will. Defendant that he under Miranda appellant’s warnings did not read stood, spoke. and he and the officer Dur prior questioning him. then conversation, ing the course of that incriminating made a number statements officer advised the defendant that he Allen, appel- which were later used at polygraph should take a test. The defen lant’s trial. agreed, day dant and the next he submitted test, police to the test. Before the read Once a defendant invokes his counsel, rights defendant his and he waived those questioning must cease until coun rights. test, After the the officer told provided sel is unless the accused himself story, defendant that he did not believe his initiates further communication with the and the defendant then confessed. police voluntarily rights. waives his Mississippi, Minnick v. U.S. of the Bradshaw Court found plurality A 486, 112 (1990); Edwards S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 489 question police defendant’s offi- “ Arizona, 451 U.S. cer, ‘Well, going happen what to me is ” Edwards, (1981). L.Ed.2d 378 after the now,’ constituted initiation of communica- right counsel, defendant invoked his to an police. plurality tion with the distin- officer advised him that two detectives guished question the defendant’s from rou- speak wished to to him. When the defen questions request tine such as a for a drink talk, dant refused to he he was told “had Instead, telephone. of water or to use the to” talk to the detectives. The defendant plurality found that the defendant’s met willing detectives and seemed statement, although ambiguous, “evinced a talk, requested to but first the defendant to willingness generalized and a desire for a taped hear statement of his co-defen Id. investigation.” discussion about statement, hearing dant. After 1045-1046, 462 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at 2834- defendant confessed. The confession was plurality 2835. The then concluded that introduced at trial. knowingly intelligently defendant rights waived his when he confessed. reversing conviction, the defendant’s Edwards Court noted that justices the invoca- plurality Four dissented from the right tion of the to counsel in Bradshaw. The dissenters con- significant opinion is a “ Id., warranting special protection. ‘Well, event question, cluded that what is ” 483-85, 451 U.S. at going happen now,’ merely S.Ct. at 1884-85. to to me The Court held “having defendant a normal reaction to the custodial sur- roundings appellant appel- s loss of free- was a killer. Because and the defendant question did not evince a dom. Such a lant did not initiate communication with the subject counsel, matter of the police right desire to discuss after he invoked investigation. commentator has noted One the confession should not have been admit- that the dissenters were “much closer to ted at his trial. analyzing ques- the mark” in Bradshaw’s Although I find that this confession was police. tion to Whitebread & C. Slobo- C.H. appellant’s right obtained violation of Procedure, gin, Analysis An Criminal counsel, thorough after a review (3d 1992). Concepts at 411 ed. Cases and transcripts, record and I find this error was Here, appellant invoked his to coun- beyond harmless a reasonable doubt. Ac- sel.1 After Allen had recovered blood cordingly, judgment I concur in the appellant appellant and Officer White told Court. him, appellant going

that he was to book asked Officer White for the third time charges against

what the him were. Al- though Appellant’s question to White— being charged quite

what was he with—is question go- similar to Bradshaw’s —what’s happen me now—there are distinc- First, appellant’s question tions. was in response direct to White’s statement going appellant he was to take BAINE, Baine, “get George Judy Dane Scott Thus, him appellant’s question booked in.” Knight Knight, Appellees, and Paula not simply spontaneous attempt conversation, initiate response but a to a statement made the officer about the OKLAHOMA &GAS ELECTRIC step next going that was be taken COMPANY, Appellant. against Second, appellant. although appel- 77948, Appeal Nos. No. 78345. lant had twice before asked White what the charges against were, him White had indi- appellant

cated to robbery that one of the Oklahoma, Appeals Court of victims was near death and other officers Division No. 3. appellant had referred to “killer.” comments, Based on appellant these could Nov. 1992. legitimate questions have charges as to the against third, Bradshaw, him. And unlike Rehearing Denied Dec. 1992. Officer appellant White did not caution Certiorari Denied March counsel, about his appel- but asked lant if speak he wished to with someone.

Given the surrounding ap- circumstances pellant’s question, appellant did not initiate police conversation with the officers.

Appellant’s question did not evince an in- Rather,

tent to talk about the case. it was perfectly response understandable White’s going statement that he was appellant,

book appellant’s response be, seems to in part, least by motivated legitimate concerns raised the comments

of White and implying other officers Knowledge suspect that a suspect. Scalf, has. invoked his with the United States v. imputed (10th Cir.1983). counsel is to all officers deal- F.2d notes from intro- interview. Her State

Case Details

Case Name: Pickens v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 25, 1993

Citation: 850 P.2d 328

Docket Number: F-90-1180

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.