*1 3.15, Rules OK CR 15 to Rule Pursuant DENIED. Appeals, Criminal Oklahoma ROJEM, Jr., Appellant Norman Richard (2008), MANDATE Ch.18, 22, App. Title v. filing delivery and upon issued is ORDERED Oklahoma, Appellee. of this decision. The STATE D-2007-660. No. LEWIS, V.P.J., JOHNSON, concur. C. Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal JOHNSON, J., concur. specially A. April CHAPEL, J., in result. concur JOHNSON, Specially Concurs. Judge,
A. conviction that Folks's agree
T1 I emphasize that ad I write affirmed.
be interview videotaped forensic
mission the child hearsay of
containing testimonial pose a Confronta did not in this ease
victim the child victim problem because
tion Clause subject to cross at trial and
testified Washing Under
examination. Crawford 1354,1374, 36, 68, ton, 124 S.Ct. 541 U.S. testimonial, (2004), out-of-
L.Ed.2d against an accused offered
court statement matter asserted truth of the
establish only the declarant where
may be admitted had a the accused has and where
unavailable the wit to cross-examine
prior opportunity however, states, that "when
ness. Crawford for cross-examination appears
the declarant no trial, places Clause
at the Confrontation prior use of his at all on the constraints n. Id. at 59 statements."
testimonial Green, 9, citing n. at 1369 S.Ct. California 26 L.Ed.2d vie- made a child Statements in a child interview during a forensic
tim constitute testimonial investigation
abuse alleged
hearsay in criminal trial unavailable If child victim is
perpetrator. trial, have been afford the defendant must
at the child opportunity to confront prior
aed before the or her statement about his
victim at trial. admissible would be
statement
387 *3 Bruehl, Henry, Gary L. Oklahoma Mary S. Division, Defense, Capital Trial
Indigent tri- Norman, OK, attorneys defendant at for al. Attorney, Smith, Angela C. District
Dennis Marsee, Attorney, Arapa- Assistant District at trial. ho, OK, attorneys Quick, Appellate Chesley, Traci J. Janet Di- Counsel, Appeals Capital Direct Defense System, vision, Indigent Defense Oklahoma appellant ap- on Norman, OK, attorneys for peal. Edmondson, Attorney Drew
W.A. step-daughter, General City from her Elk apartment Oklahoma, Branham, Seth S. July Assistant on 6 or 1984. She was found face- General, OK, Attorney City, Oklahoma attor- down in a field near Burns Flat around 9:00 neys appeal. appellee 7th, July a.m. on wearing pink nightgown. gagged, She was sexually assaulted,
OPINION and was stabbed several times. Judge.
CHAPEL, Regarding Jury Issues Selection Rojem, Richard Norman Jr. was tried 13 In III claims by jury and convicted of kidnapping, rape the trial court committed reversible error degree and first murder in the District Court *4 improperly denying his challenge for cause County, of Washita Case No. CRF-84-35. against two prospective jurors. After appeal, On this Court affirmed the convie- challenges denied, Rojem were removed the tions and sentences.1 The United States prospective jurors jury panel from the using Appeals Court of grant for the Tenth Cireuit peremptory challenges. He claims these rul ed relief from the death A sentence.2 resen- ings were error and violated his constitution tencing trial was County, held Washita right al process, due a fair trial and a Rojem again death, was sentenced to sentencing reliable proceeding as well as his this Court reversed that sentence and re statutory right to nine peremptory chall 2).3 manded the case for resentencing (Rojem enges.5 Rojem used remaining peremp Rojem's Pursuant motion for change of tory challenges, requested two additional venue, the second resentencing hearing was challenges, specified which sitting County, held in Custer Case No. CF-2006- he would why they excuse and were unac 370. Rojem's The second resentenc- ceptable to him. preserved This issue is thus (1) ing trial Rojem found that previously appellate for review.6 The trial court has felony convicted of a involving the use or broad discretion when considering (2) threat of person; violence to the juror to excuse a juror cause.7 A especially murder was heinous atrocious or be able to penalties, consider all and his or (8) cruel, and the murder was committed for her prevent views should not substantially the purpose of avoiding or preventing a law impair performance of his or her duties ful prosecution. arrest or In accordance juror aas in accordance with her instruction jury's
with the
recommendation the Honor
and oath.8 In reviewing
claims,
these
able
imposed
Charles L. Goodwin
the death
juror's
look to the
entire voir dire record.9
penalty. Rojem appeals from this sentence.
2 A full recitation of the facts of this
Rojem
case
argues
first
the trial
Rojem
is set forth in
v.
Briefly,
State.4
court erred in refusing
panelist
to excuse
M
Rojem
Layla Cummings,
took
his former
for cause. He claims M was
confused
State,
Rojem
57,
1.
v.
1988 OK CR
witness. development issue of on the and conclusion demonstra- PowerPoint prohibited court that the decision-making. claims refer- afraid court was tive aid Power- on the information exclusion confuse would DOJ model to the ence He unfairly prejudicial. was Point slides law, par- understanding of Oklahoma jury's significantly contained the slides argues ag- continuing threat concerning the ticularly presented than could be more information Nothing in the rec- cireumstance. gravating form, question-and-answer oral trial court's this assertion. supports ord all the material cover unable to was counsel expressed vigorously clearly and was concern Cunning He claims the slides. present on believed times: several Rojem's complete unable to ham was Department Justice the U.S. reference use of the demonstra- history without social not generally, law to federal a reference the Power- areas Although some aid. tive trial, he in the any issue applied to as detail, the more contained presentation Point court never The trial it. permit would presented Cunningham shows record an issue jury confusion suggested early child- testimony Rojem's ample oral case, does not the record concern behavior well as his development as hood jury would *7 any conclusion support Cunningham discussed incarcerated. while presen- by the PowerPoint misled have been background with al- family Rojem's length at tation. violence, anger, includ- coholism, and conflict record for more basis is 11 There Cunningham Rojem. at directed ing abuse suggestion the State's house- Rojem's chaotic childhood mentioned had been there unhappy because already testifying onee, specifically than hold more defense during the trial delays in the several to fifteen thirteen had household that the trial However, to address in order case. home. square foot living in a people for an asked counsel trial concerns court's Cunningham em- Throughout his minutes, a few lunch, a continuance early family problems widespread phasized the wit- speak with his moment a brief and resulting alcohol, vio- and the by created have requests would of these None ness. give not details Cunningham did lence. and The first delayed the trial. significantly by Rojem as suffered abuse alleged sexual and the second denied were requests third testimony. it in his child, allude to did but court The trial truncated. granted but family prob- other spoke of Cunningham also by defense frustrated may well have father, Rojem's lems, violent death time managing difficulties counsel's expe- models and role poor parenting That frustration appearances. and witness school, the effects rienced, difficulties his of rele- prohibition for the blanket no excuse Rojem's gesta- complications poverty, evidence. demonstrative and admissible vant early child- birth, subsequent his tion cast, and body in a years surgery and hood thorough review of After a Rojem's predispositions. genetic adverse record, agree with entire
mother also testified regarding
$16
pregnan-
her
In
II
claims
cy, Rojem's premature birth
physical
the trial court erred in refusing to allow him
problems,
to present the testimony of a
the chaotic
conditions,
household
witness
family
alcoholism and conflict. Rojem's
transcript without first showing that the wit
high
girlfriend
school
testified
family
that the
ness was
testify.
unavailable to
In
got
often
together,
drunk
belligerent
were
2003 resentencing trial, defense DNA expert
fought.
Brian Wraxall testified that he tested DNA
evidence from the
fingernails
victim's
notes,
14 As
the trial court's rul
found that
was excluded as a source.
ing prevented Cunningham from explaining
Rojem sought
to introduce this evidence in
to the
the underlying basis of
opin
his
the current
trial,
resentencing
filing a motion
ion, as it rested on the information found in
to admit the evidence through the 2008 tran-
study
the DOJ
and he was not allowed to
seript. The trial court failed to rule on this
study.
refer
to that
Although
expert
an
pretrial
motion at a
hearing,
again
at the
must disclose these bases if
asked
either
beginning
trial,
despite Rojem's repeated
party,
parties
prohibited
both
were
from ask
requests for a ruling. The trial
ing Cunningham the basis
finally
opinion.13
of his
ruled on the motion
days
several
into the
jurors'
hindered
assessment
trial, after
the defense
already
called
credibility
of Cunningham's conclu
eight witnesses.14 The motion was denied
However,
sions.
jurors did hear that Cun
grounds
had not
ningham
shown
relied on a nationally known and
Wraxall was unavailable as a
accepted study,
witness. Ro-
and were able to assess his
jem claims this decision was
credibility
error.
through his testimony.
T15 While
¶ 17
we find that
the trial court
As
below,
we discuss
the trial court's
abused its discretion in refusing to
decision,
allow
based on the statutory provision
Rojem's expert witness to use demonstrative
allowing admission of transcripts
in capital
aids during
testimony,
his
resentencing cases, was
Cunningham and
However,
error.
other witnesses were
able to
great
evidence was inadmissible on
grounds.
deal of information regarding Rojem's devel-
Rojem 2,
In
discussing the 2003 resentencing
opment and factors related to
ability
trial,
we noted that this exact evidence went
good
make
decisions. The record shows that
to residual
doubt of
guilt.15 We held
jurors were able to use this information in
in that case that residual doubt evidence is
their deliberations.
reason,
For
not admissible in
resentencing trial
Court finds that
the trial court's error does where
only
its
purpose is to re-raise the
require
However,
relief.
question
trial courts
of a
are
guilt.16
defendant's
Rojem en
strongly cautioned to take care in prohibiting
courages this Court to reconsider that deci
defense exhibits on mitigating evidence dur-
sion and find that residual doubt evidence is
*8
ing the
stage
second
capital
of a
trial.
appropriate
in capital
resentencing
cases.
13.
24, ¶ 19,
Lewis v.
1998 OK CR
970 P.2d
objection
State's
to
testimony
the
as inadmissible
1158, 1167.
residual
By
doubt
waiting
evidence.
until
the
defense case
way
was well under
the trial court
14. We
appears
note that there
to be no reason in
virtually ensured that counsel could not have the
the record for the
delay.
trial court's
While
out-of-state
trial,
during
witness available
the
suggesting
deny
motion,
it would
the
the trial
had counsel wished to offer
testimony.
his live
repeatedly
court
stated it could not rule on the
As the trial court refused to rule on the residual
motion
it
until
knew what the evidence would be.
objection,
doubt
counsel was faced with the ex-
However,
ruling,
after
the adverse
defense coun-
pense of a last-minute
bring
effort
to
in the
sought
sel
to make a
regarding
record
prof-
the
witness, knowing that
might
his evidence
well be
testimony.
fered
The trial court would not allow
ruled
appeared.
inadmissible if he
it, stating
testimony
the
from 2003 was
record,
already in the
which was voluminous.
Rojem,
7, ¶ 56
15.
16,
2006 OK CR
The
n.
record of
130 P.3d at
proceeding
this
shows that the trial
298, n. 16.
court was well aware
proposed
of the
testimony
and could have ruled on
the defense
at
any time. The trial court
ruling
based its
Rojem,
7, ¶ 56,
entire-
16.
393 testimony and the unavailable is witness the the Although invitation.17 the decline We reliability.21 The of indicia bears regarding pres the law misapplied trial Rojem could ruling that in Littlejohn capital cited transeript evidence of entation testimony transcript Wraxall's introduce not harm no cases, Rojem suffered resentencing Rojem had not because the statute under as inadmissible evidence the testify. to unavailable Wraxall shown doubt.18 to residual going The constitutional error. ruling was This confrontation right of granting the trial protection briefly We turn 118 and the the State equally in this case. ruling apply not erroneous does court's grants Amendment The Sixth defendant. that ev provides resentencing statute capital his aceus- confront right trial previous in the the defendant admitted idence the same transcript grant ers, not but does may introduced sentencing be exhibits provides course, The statute right.22 Of resentencing trial.19 capital in a tri right capital previous transcripts has a constitutional from the every defendant capital subsequent in a the stat are admissible Interpreting al witnesses.20 confront a defen mandate, statute this resentencing. Under constitutional light of that ute in testimony aof transcript offer dant Littlejohn v. State held this Court any further showin without witness transcript previous of introduce may not State this evi ruled previously not Had we g.23 capital re- in a proceedings capital previous inadmissible, Rojem showing that first dence was sentencing trial without 67-68, 124 S.Ct. Crawford, U.S. at 541 quently in Rojem without writ 2 result in I concurred 1373-1374, judicial de that a held the Court at had reservations time I ing separately. At the reliability is sufficient where of of residual termination prohibit the use decision about our concerned, required resentencing is cases. evidence testimonial doubt evidence opportunity unavailability prior showing doubt evi residual I believe reflection, Upon acknowledged Among rea other This cross-examination. be admissible. dence should Miller, Supreme sons, 2004 changed United States test in I take note Crawford Oregon ¶ 25, 29, v. of the issue Guz at 743. discussion 98 P.3d Court's 1226, 517, ek, 163 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 126 admissibility (2006), at resen- noting the 1112 prosecutions, the accused criminal "In all at not available which was tencing with right confronted enjoy ... to be shall my this case on yield vote in original I trial. against Const. amend. him". U.S. the witnesses case and stare law of the principles of the - - -, n. California, U.S. v. VI. See Giles decisis. 171 L.Ed.2d 7, 2692 n. 2678, 128 S.Ct. 7, ("'The Consti (2008) asymmetrical nature of the reason, Rojem's suggestion that trial 18. For guarantees an anom is not criminal-trial tution's bring failing Wrax- was ineffective counsel privileges conferring of aly, the intentional but v. testify must fail. Strickland in court all conviction of prevent criminal designed to 2052, S.Ct. 694 104 Washington, 466 U.S. that."); at no risk innocent. (defendant (1984) must L.Ed.2d at 1362- 48-51, U.S. at Crawford, omission). act or prejudice from counsel's show (historical Clause analysis Confrontation rights protect designed to it was concludes O.S.2001, 701.10a(4) ("all exhibits and § accused). that the State observation Court's transcript of all right witnesses enjoys to cross-examine too prior and sentenc properly admitted statutory reality, anot practical recognizes sentencing in the new ing admissible be shall with that co-extensive right to confrontation proceeding"). 1968 OK Bennett the accused. 253, 264. 448 P.2d ¶ 21, 36, 42, 124 Washington, 541 U.S. 20. Crawford (2004); *9 Miller L.Ed.2d 177 158 S.Ct. prosecutors must be argues that State 23. The 29, 24, ¶ State, 743. P.3d 98 v. testimony previous object anew allowed subsequent resen- in a is offered which 85 6, ¶ 27, OK CR Littlejohn State, 2004 v. 21. party here. Either tencing. not the issue That is v. Rob Littlejohn on Ohio relied P.3d admissibility of objections to the may raise anew L.Ed.2d 597 2531, 65 100 S.Ct. erts, proceedings. previous admitted Supreme (1980). States the United Roberts In admissibility of objected the State While the requires Clause the Confrontation held grounds, testimony residual doubt on Wraxall's hearing testimony preliminary before that rule on explicitly failed the proceeding the State subsequent in a be admitted testimony Con- prohibited the objection, and the is unavailable the witness show must grounds. Clause frontation reliability. Subse of indicia bears 394 allowed it transcript at lars is extremely give useful to notice of the
this resentencing trial.
State's
defendant,
case to a
it
is unfairly
prejudicial
to share the information in the
In Proposition
Rojem
IV
argues
jurors.
Bill with
He cites no cases from any
the trial court
allowing
erred in
jurisdiction
support
which
this claim.
State to read the Bill of Particulars
to the
jury,
it
contains a
summary
detailed
Rojem
has not shown that read
of the State's evidence. Criminal
prac
ing the Bill of Particulars
is fundamentally
requires
tice in Oklahoma
that the Informa
unfair and violates
conceptions
fundamental
tion be read to the
and the defendant's
justice.25
Nor has he shown that it vio
plea announced
opening
before
statements.24 lates the community's
play
sense of fair
In capital
cases,
resentencing
Bill
of Par
decency,26or fails to adequately protect the
ticulars
place
takes the
of the Information.
rights
persons
charged by the authorities
began, Rojem
Before trial
that,
asked
rather with committing crime.27
jurors
than reading the entire Bill of Particulars to were instructed that
the Bill of Particulars
jury,
prosecutor
read the statutory was "the formal method of stating the
language defining the aggravating cireum- grounds upon which the State
imposi
seeks
alleged
stances
in the Bill. Rojem sought to
tion of the
penalty,"
death
evidence,
was not
having jurors
avoid
hear the details of the
jurors
should not be
against
influenced
crime
opening
before
statements were made Rojem by the fact that the State filed a Bill
presented.
evidence was
of Particulars.28 The trial court further in
was denied.
opening
After
instructions were
structed
presumed
innocent
given Rojem
objection
renewed his
to the
allegations
in the Bill of Particulars
reading of the
Bill
Particulars,
entire
presumption
would continue unless
which
again
denied. The State then
proved
one of more
aggrava
of the
read the Bill of Particulars before making its
ting
alleged
cireumstances
beyond
the Bill
opening statement.
a reasonable doubt.
reading
Bill,
After
1 20
allege
does not
that the Bill of
announced that
pled not
Particulars was itself in
way defective or guilty, placing the burden on the State to
erroneous; nor does he claim that it failed to
prove
allegations
in the Bill beyond a
provide
summary
of the evidence intended
reasonable doubt. Nothing in the record
to support
alleged
aggravating cireum-
supports Rojem's suggestion
proce
that this
stance and the witnesses the State intended
dure influenced
against him and re
to call.
argues
He
procedure
this
gave
sulted in an unfair trial. This Court has held
the State four opportunities
put
its case
that a trial court did not improperly direct a
jury:
before the
reading them the document
verdict
reading the allegations in the Bill
listing the evidence it
present,
intended to
part
Particulars as
of an instruction on an
giving an opening statement describing the
aggravating cireumstance.29 Extending this
evidence, presenting
pre-
principle, reading
allegations
in the Bill
senting argument about
the evidence. He
part
Particulars as
of opening instructions
suggests that
unnecessary
repetition and
neither
process
violates due
nor
results
an
the use of an
document,
official
bearing the
unfair trial.
imprimatur
violated
rights
process
due
and a fair trial
Essentially,
122 In Proposition
VI
claims
that,
claims
while the Bill of Particu-
that his death sentence violates the state and
O.S.2001,
24. 22
§ 831.
28. This instruction was modified from the uni-
form
explaining
instruction
the nature of the
25. Dowling v. United States,
395 evidence, have it would the introduced have fac mitigating because constitutions federal residual it went to inadmissible cireum- been aggravating the outweighed tors independent The evidence correct. this Court He asks doubt. This stances. penalty on Ro- the death doubt mitigating casts evidence to as weigh the refers ly As we dis- sug crimes. request in the involvement jem's the verdict. aside and set inappro II, role. it would be misunderstanding Proposition this Court's of euss a gests review, Court to create this intended mandatory evidence sentence to admit priate In its im during the penalty was Rojem's guilt the death whether doubt considers residual preju passion, influence of will not con the resentencing under trial.32 This posed do arbitrary factor.30 We any as we review evidence category dice or this sider of the for that judgment our not substitute sentence. the into ac taking record the review jury, but reviewing the rec- thoroughly After im have which any cireumstances count was not penalty ord, that the death find jury's verdict.31 the affected properly prej- passion, influence of the imposed under parties attorneys for both that shows record arbitrary Suffi- factor. any other or udice during professionally themselves conducted the three each of supported evidence cient a claim of neither Rojem raises trial. this jury. found the cireumstances aggravating separate nor a misconduct prosecutorial was ad- argument or improper evidence No counsel, and assistance of ineffective claim unfairly prejudi- have could mitted which claim. support either not would record the Jurors jury's decision. swayed the cially sufficiency the challenge the not He does to consider opportunity had the heard cireum- supporting evidence making mitigating evidence significant any suggests that stances, the record any error In absence their decision. impact No victim fail. challenge would such decision, that influenced might have which not find do presented. We was evidence jury's verdict. disturb we will not admitted improperly any evidence in improperly could which introduced Jury Relating to Instructions Issues jury. fluenced V that Proposition Rojem argues allowed that he was Rojem claims mitiga the issue of jury instructions evidence, in the present mitigating present definition limited the impermissibly tion jurors. swayed might have record, which seriously diminished mitigating evidence law, that, initially argues under The State evidence mitigating the effect introducing Rojem from nothing prevented result, and, violated as a case previous from transcript giv Rojem's jury was rights. constitutional II though in trials-even (2nd) 4-78, defin of OUJI-CR version en the transcript testi- Wraxall's argues State evidence, time at the in effect ing mitigating it, like both because inadmissible mony was denied trial. The of his to residual went this rest of modified to be this instruction were not doubt, other conditions and because Subsequently, definition. a different reflect coherently explain fails to State met. The State,33 similar we considered in Harris Finally the contradiction. apparent determined error. We claim of that, Rojem could although argues mandatory part of our ing record as O.S.2001, the entire § 701.13. they may have we determined review sentence Ullery 1999 OK relies on jury, contributed improperly influenced the is unusu That case P.2d ¶ 46, 988 modify Ullery's decision the Court's In factually case. from differs al and parole. possibility of without to life sentence single aggravating circum Ullery, jurors found heinous, especially the murder stance-that I disagree this conclusion. with I continue im Court found cruel. This atrocious stare decisis. my on the basis of yield vote Ullery's regarding sani opinion proper admitted, prosecution that the ty had de cert. P.3d 33. 2007 Ullery's detri seriously the law misstated - -, nied, 170 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. did not argument. errors closing These ment in However, upon review separately. require relief *11 (as then-standard given instruction adequate, Ro- rights violated his pro due jem's jury) prohibit jurors did not from con cess and by jury, jurors sidering mitigating evidence.34 For this rea be instructed that aggravating cireumstances son, the trial court did not err in refusing must outweigh mitigating beyond Rojem's request for a modified instruction. reasonable doubt. He admits this Court has rejected this claim.38 We continue to hold cases, Based on our review of several that no we such noted in instruction necessary, Harris as instruction's language Oklahoma defining requires law mitigating only jurors evidence tended encourage improper prosecutorial argu unanimously find any aggravating circum advising jurors ment beyond stance limit reasonable doubt. they could consider as mitigating. Such an argument present Harris, was although Accumulation of Error
we determined that
it had no effect on the
verdict.35 In
discourage
order to
1 28
improper
claims in
VIII that
argument on
important
issue,
we
re
accumulation of error
in this case de
ferred the issue to the Oklahoma
prived
Uniform
him
process
of due
of law and a
Jury
(Criminal)
Instruction Committee
reliable sentencing proceeding.
In Proposi
jury
formulate modified
instruction defin
tion I we found that the trial court abused its
ing mitigating
cireunmstances
discretion in prohibiting Rojem's expert wit
doing
cases.36 In
so we stated:
empha
"we
ness from using demonstrative
during
aids
size that
language
of the current
instruc
his testimony. However, as
expert
tion itself is not
legally inaccurate,
inade
able to
research,
communicate his
findings
quate, or unconstitutional. Cases in which
and conclusions to
jury,
we determined
(2d)
the current OUJI-CR
4-78 has been
the error did
require
relief.
In Proposi
applied
used and
subject
are not
to reversal
tion II we found that the trial court erred in
on this
Despite
basis."
this clear state
refusing to
allow
a wit
ment, Rojem urges this
apply
Court to
Har
ness's testimony by transcript. However,
retroactively
ris
and find error. We decline
the testimony was otherwise inadmissible.
that,
to do so.
Harris,
We note
unlike
the We found no other errors.
There is no
prosecutors
case did not use the
cumulativeerror in this case.39
language
old
to improperly argue jurors
should disregard mitigating evidence. That
Mandatory Sentence Review
is, in Rojem's case there was no misstate
ment of
might
law which
ju
confused
(1)
129 We must determine
whether
rors or misled them regarding
ability
their
the sentence of death
imposed
under the
consider
mitigating evidence. The
influence
passion,
prejudice,
or
trial court did not err in instructing
jury
arbitrary factor,
(2)
whether
the evi
using the then-standard uniform instruction.
supports
dence
jury's
findings
27 In Proposition
VII
claims that
Upon
mstances.40
review of the
circu
the uniform instructions on aggravating
record,
cir-
say
cannot
the sentences of death
cumstances and mitigating evidence were in-
imposed
were
because the
was influ
Harris,
28, ¶ 25,
34.
2007 OK
Harris,
P.3d at
¶ 26,
37.
2007 OK CR
substantiated JOHNSON, V.P.J., P.J., JOHNSON, A.
C. J.;: LEWIS, concur. OK CR 16 J.;: LUMPKIN, in results. concur MAGNAN, Appellant David Brian LUMPKIN, Judge: concur result. decision with the Court's T1 I concur Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE However, I in this case. sentence affirm the No. D-2005-683. its aspects of in some the Court differ with analysis. Appeals of Oklahoma. of Criminal issue of my that the belief 2 I continue 22, 2009. April not a structural challenges is peremptory analy- in its erred and the Court error issue State, 2006 OK the issue Golden sis of way; positive the life of others in po- touched has showed were instructed: Jurors taking attempted to better himself contributing has af- for rehabilitation tential friends, prison; DNA found the male while in classes family, firmatively his the lives of Cummings inmates, Layla fingernails Dawn a contribution and can make under the fellow year incarcerated, Rojem; received a 1000 that of is not Ro- society prison; while even in year rape and a 1000 conviction for his sentence possible death row attempted jem to make it kidnapping in this donors; conviction for his Rojem has sentence organ to become inmates pris- case; spiritually while in grown has afghans then by knitting that are helped others becoming lay disciple the Buddhist people; aiding help projects finance sold religion. organ efforts donation a result of as