Smith v. State

SMITH, Appellant, Roderick L. Oklahoma, Appellee.

STATE of

No. F-94-1199. Appeals

Court of Criminal of Oklahoma.

Oct. 13, 1997

Publication Ordered Jan. Granting Rehearing

Order 6, 1996.

Dec. Watson,

Kenneth Smythe, C. Vernon Okla- City, Appellant homa at trial. Peters, Ann Lee Jones Indigent Oklahoma System, Norman, Defense Appellant for on appeal. Macy, Smith,

Robert H. Fern L. Oklahoma Courthouse, County City, Oklahoma for the at trial. State Edmondson, Attorney General, W.A. Drew Whittaker, Robert Attorney L. Assistant General, City, Appellee Oklahoma ap- peal.

STRUBHAR, Judge: Smith, Appellant, charged Roderick L. Degree with five counts First Murder in O.S.1991, 701.7, § violation of 21 in the Dis- County, trict Court of Oklahoma Case No. CF-93-3968. The case was tried before the Honorable Richard W. Freeman. The State five, filed a Bill alleging aggra- of Particulars vating jury circumstances. The found guilty lant charged of the crimes and found alleged aggravating all five circumstances to Appellant exist.1 was sentenced to death on Judgment all counts. From this and Sen- Appellant perfected appeal. tence has 4) following aggravating 1. The pur- found the cir- The murders were committed for the cumstances to exist: pose avoiding preventing a lawful arrest or 1) Smith); previously prosecution (except The defendant was convicted of a as to Jennifer and fеlony involving 5) the use or threat of violence to probability The existence of a that the de- person; fendant would commit criminal acts of violence 2) knowingly great The defendant created a continuing that would constitute a threat to soci- person; risk of death to more than one ety. 3) heinous, especially The murders were atro- cruel; cious or Appellant told the any details. remember FACTS bodies. placed each of the he police where Smith, was married Jennifer prior relation- from a four children who had PRETRIAL ISSUES Carter, nine year old Shemeka ship: ten pro contends that the Appellant first Jr., Carter, year old seven year old Glen determine utilized Oklahoma cedures Carter, year old Kanesha and six Ladarian trial are less competency to stand person’s children lived with Carter. as sufficient accepted than those protective and Jennifer. and Supreme Court States the United 28, 1993, Jenni- morning of June theOn meet federal constitutional do not therefore them police and asked called the fer’s mother process. As of due standards had not dаughter’s house. She her to check Due out, it is well settled points 18, June from Jennifer since or heard seen prose prohibits the criminal Process Clause arrived at Peterson 1993. When Officer competent to is not of a defendant who cution where Jennifer residence Missouri, 420 U.S. Drope v. trial. See stand lived, appeared to be secured the house (1975); L.Ed.2d 103 95 S.Ct.. he doors. Because answered the no one Robinson, 86 S.Ct. Pate v. large decaying flesh and an odor of noticed making de such L.Ed.2d 815 windows, he con- around the number of flies termination, has held Supreme Wayne supervisor, Lieutenant tacted his judge to district enough for the that “it is Owen, Owen and came to the address. who time oriented to [is] that ‘the defendant find through a win- the house Peterson entered recollection of place and some [has] ” Inside, they a dead woman discovered dow. States, events,’.... Dusky v. United child in another. and a dead in one closet 4 L.Ed.2d division of the Okla- They called the homicide (1960). Rather, upon incumbent it is and secured City Department homa Police defen [the “whether trial court to determine arrived, homicide detectives the house. Once ability to consult present has sufficient dant] searched. of the house was the rest degree of lawyer awith reasonable with his found, more children were of three bodies he has understanding whether rational —and third under a bed. in closets and the two understanding of factual as well as a rational to be those of determined The bodies were against him.” Id. proceedings the They her four children. Smith and Jennifer principles are reflected same These for at have been dead to were determined O.S.1991, § 22 1175.1 Title law. Oklahoma’s long days up to as as and least two to three ability competency as “the defines weeks or more. two charged with a for or person a arrested of the the nature crime to understand day, June of that same The afternoon brought against charges proceedings and into the Oklahoma Appellant walked rationally him, effectively and to ... and He was turned over County Office. Sheriffs language has This in his defense.” City placed and un- assist Police to the Oklahoma two-part test interpreted proffer to a interrogation, been During a custodial dеr arrest. have sufficient that an accused requiring first Bemo and Cook Appellant told Detectives attorney her and ability consult with his or job head to laid off his as that he had been and second, have a “rational Elementary that an accused Irving janitor Washington at proceedings understanding of the actual company that he worked because the School P.2d Middaugh v. Ap- against him.” According to contract. for had lost its (Okl.Cr.1988). found This Court has this news he told his wife pellant, when the effective between grabbed little or no difference point fight ensued. At one Jennifer language meaning law and and of Oklahoma’s the knife from her a knife and he took “In Dusky. Supreme Court boys to used came her with it. When stuck cases, required to under defense, the accused is them with both he stuck their mother’s him, implica charges against Although Appellant admit- stand the knife as well. against him and be able also, charges tions of the “got” girls he could that he ted effectively attorney cantly, in defense defense counsel did not advise the assist his having problems Lambert v. trial court that he was still charges against him.” of the (Okl.Cr.1994). communicating Appellant. See Perry 526-27 also upon presented Based the evidence at the (Okl.Cr.1995). persuaded Appellant has not post-examination competency hearing, us otherwise. trial competent court found making ruling, stand trial. After proposition, Appel part As of his first trial court indicated that if evidence came to O.S.1991, § 1175.4 is lant contends that light demonstrating was in- every presumes insofar as it unconstitutional competent to stand trial such would be con- person competent requires defendant sidered at that time. There is no indication prove competency is at issue to incom whose from the record that such evidence was ever petence by convincing evidence at clear Indeed, presented. there is evidence to the hearing. post-examination competency contrary. Prior to the commencement of recently Supreme Court The United States 18, 1994, Appellant, voir dire on October Oklahoma, Cooper addressed this issue in himself, argued two motions to the trial — U.S.-, 134 L.Ed.2d court. first stated that he was (1996), it held that the clear and wherein expressions prоse- concerned about facial convincing proof violate due burden of does Second, jury. cutors would make to the requiring process. practice of “OMahoma’s previously had filed a motion to prove incompetence clear the defendant to attorney have his removed from the case convincing significant imposes because felt that he defense counsel was not of an that the risk erroneous determination job. — doing hearing Appel- his At the motion incompetent.” defendant is subsequently changed lant stated that he had -, at 1381. 20,1994, Again, his mind. on October 20, 1993, July defense counsel On when argued lant another motion to the trial court argued competency his motion for a examina- regarding disparity jury. racial He tion, during he advised the trial court was concerned because eleven of the twelve meetings, Appellant had not their first few jurors were white. these motions While understand, questions about seemed argued were with the skill of a trial happened what had and had not known how attorney, clearly were communicated this, respond. upon Based coun- defense enough Ap- for the trial court to understand questions sel stated that he had serious Further, pellant’s although concerns. these Appellant’s ability about to aid his defense. merit, they motions without not were were so granted request The trial court the for a preposterous inappropriately as to have been competency Subsequently, examination. Appellant that raised. These instances show 3, 1993, September post-examination at the only proceedings against not understood the competency hearing, neither the defense nor him, very participant but he also was a active any testify. to the State called witnesses in his own defense. Rather, parties stipulated both to the admis- King, Appellant argues expert sion of a letter from Dr. the that the record reflects performed Appellant’s psychiatric display who had he did not a rational and factual King understanding proceedings evaluation. Dr. in letter he concluded of the because that, distinguish reality fantasy. “Mr. Smith is able to communicate ra- could not from tionally attorney King, upon with his and to deal ade- This is based the notation of Dr. quately Appellant “largely with his defense.”2 Defense counsel that was concerned with necessarily agree having ‘getting stated that while he did not his mother visit him and with jail.” King’s findings, pre- get with Dr. he truth’ can That so he out of pared any findings thought possible to because it contest of her could have having go no funds were available for him to secure a he would to home after be able opinion Signifi- expert. second from another confessed to the crime is said to demonstrate Original Original 2. Record at 3. at 35. Record juror may properly be excluded prospective intellectually a understand inability to his upon or her views on based his for cause fiction. separate fact from proceedings standard is capital punishment. “That if plausible more argument would seem This ‘prevent or juror’s views would whether the away from to back had not tried substantially impair performance of his However, instead original confession. his in juror in accordance with his as a duties confession, Appellant original adhering his to ”4 in his oath.’ The Court structions and stories about what telling alternative started juror’s Wainwright went on to note that a being poi- ranging from him happened, had proved with “unmistakable bias need not be persons of other organized accounts soned clarity.” acts. having committed the juror This is because determinations have King can found to to Dr. be statement question-and- cannot be reduced to bias very a rational understand- upon based

been results in the sessions which obtain answer that his hope and his ing proceedings common manner of a catechism. What be believed over explanations would later experience has have realized sense should original confession. simply many cannot be proved: veniremen to the con- Despite Appellant’s assertion point enough questions to reach asked finding supports a trary, the record we find made ‘unmistak- their bias has been where proceedings knew the nature of that he clear’; may know ably veniremen these understanding of possessed a rational impos- faced with will react when how prove, even failed to them. The defense sentence, may unаble ing death or be evidence, preponderance of the articulate, may to hide their wish incompetent to stand trial. Because lant was clarity feelings. Despite this lack true supports strongly evidence in this case so however, record, there will printed in the competent, we finding judge where the trial is left be situations case for a new determi- need not remand this impression pro- that a the definite nation on this issue. faithfully juror be unable to spective would law.... impartially apply [T]his Appellant complains his second paid why deference must be part] is [in trial it was error for the proposition judge hears the the trial who sees and juror prospective to dismiss for cause court ' juror. Initially, when asked about Tello. Mario give equal consideration to he could whether 852-53, 425-26, 469 U.S. at possible punishments for of the three each 83 L.Ed.2d at 852-53. Murder, replied that he Degree Tello First responses argues that Tello’s give consideration to each could honest his removal for were not sufficient to warrant However, dis because he these choices. simply expressed Tellо had cause because answering played hesitation some might be affected the awesome that he question question, the trial court decided considering penal- responsibility of the death respect. Although Tello him further not “unmistak- ty. Although Tello’s bias is throughout give could maintained he clear,” greater ably the record reflects choices, all three he equal consideration to question- than this. After extensive concern know consistently that he did not also stated court, prosecutor and defense ing the trial impose penalty. if he could ever the death counsel, although trial court believed that this, for upon Based Tello was dismissed said he could consider the death Tello had cause. really it.5 Tello’s penalty he did not mean Witt, 412, 424, not vote for the Wainwright that he could 469 U.S. indication 844, 852, 841, penalty regardless of the circum- death 83 L.Ed.2d 851-52 S.Ct. stances, finding (1985), supports a that his views Supreme re the United States substantially impair the determining prevent or when would affirmed the standard II, (Even Transcript, Vol. at 111-12. in Adams v. 5. Trial 4. This standard was first established Texas, 45, 2521, 2526, dismissal.) object U.S. 100 S.Ct. did to this defense counsel (1980). L.Ed.2d juror (Okl.Cr. performance of his duties as a Young accor- 1983). dance with his instructions and his oath. Ac- cordingly, we find that the trial court’s dis- Appellant’s Prior to the admission of con- juror prospective missal of Tello for cause fession a hearing Jackson v. Denno7 was Appellant’s not violative of

was Sixth and held on defense counsel’s suppress. motion to rights. Fourteenth Amendment Therein, it was established that before he questioned Appellant was was read the Mi- Shortly after the bodies of the victims warnings. Appellant initially randa ap- Appellant were discovered on June peared unresponsive and indicated that he County walked into the Oklahoma Sheriffs rights. did not understand his The detective Department appearing to be disoriented. rights again, went over the explaining each discovered, identity After his he was right individually, again Appellant and asked City Depart taken the Oklahoma Police if he Appellant understood them. stated that ment where he was arrested and taken into he believed he did. When the detectives interrogation questioning. an room for This proceeded questioning with Appellant talked interrogation videotaped Appellant’s and having about been in an accident and claimed confessions were admitted into evidence at that he could not things. remember some At Appellant propo trial. contends in this third point Appellant one Detective Bemo told failing sition the trial court erred in spoken he had with mother and suppress his confessions he because confess she had said that anything there was not having knowingly ed without first and intelli wrong Appellant morning. with After gently rights. waived his Miranda6 comment, Appellant’s changed. behavior Burbine, In Moran v. longer appeared He no to be disoriented and 421,106 1135,1141, 410,421 89 L.Ed.2d . responded he well ques- to the detective’s (1986), Supreme Court addressed effec- tions. It ‍​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‍was after Appellant this that con- rights finding tive waiver of Miranda that: having fessed to killed Jennifer and chil- First, relinquishment following day, dren.8 The right of the must the detectives met again voluntary Appellant have been with request. Again, the sense that it product was the the detectives him rights of a free and read his Miranda deliberate intimidation, prior to coercion, questioning choice rather than him. wаs hes- Second, deception. itant but indicated that the waiver he understood his must rights. During have been made with a full awareness both interview again right of the nature of talked about the death of being his wife and abandoned consequences her children.9 and the of the decision to Only “totality abandon it. if the court, hearing testimony The trial after surrounding interroga- circumstances viewing tapes, Ap- the video found that tion” reveal both an uneoerced choice and pellant appeared to have understood Mi- requisite comprehension may level of warnings. randa The trial court found it properly court conclude that the Miranda significant acted more alert rights have been waived. responded normally more after the de- Bustamonte, See also Schneckloth v. him spoken tectives told had his mother who told them that there was Further, admissibility where nothing wrong of a state with him. The trial court challenged, ment or confession is the burden genius noted that while was not a upon stress, the State to preponder appeared show to have been under he ance of voluntary. сonscious, the evidence that it was voluntary seemed able to make a Arizona, 436, 30, 6. Miranda v. attempted 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. third 9.A interview was on June 1602, (1966). 1993, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 Appellant, but on this date he was after rights, read his Miranda informed authorities Denno, 368, 1774, 7. v. Jackson 378 U.S. 84 S.Ct. attorney that he had an and the interview was (1964). 12 L.Ed.2d 908 appropriately terminated. Appellant's tape statements were all recorded. 530 (Okl.Cr.1988). In this es totality keeping the cir- speak. of 911 to The

decision interrogation that the evi surrounding precedent, tablished we find cumstances prior abuse of ruling Appellant’s physical that of the trial court’s dence supports relevant show motive and speak to with the detectives Jennifer was to lant’s decision requisite with the intent. was uncoerced made rights. understanding of constitutional his disagree as the conten We well with

Accordingly, does not war- proposition this Appellant’s extra tion that evidence of rant relief. suppressed. affair should been marital have relationship, Appel of During the course this FIRST ISSUES STAGE his intent to expressed girlfriend lant his proposi Appellant argues in his fifth marry have her. This was children with trial that he was denied a fair tion Appellant’s and in to show motive relevant crimes improper of other introduction State’s tent. a Prior to filed trial the State evidence. Although the State did introduce evidence apprising that it would offer notice crimes or bad acts other than those of history of had a evidence tried, being this evi- which abusing that he had physically his wife and exceptions recognized fell within well dence engaged in an extramarital affair. of prohibiting to the rule the introduction this did not tend claims evidence Further, crimes evidence. we find that other motive, intent, prepara opportunity, prove probative value of this relevant evidence tion, knowledge, identity plan, or absence prejudicial Appellant’s outweighed its effect. acceptable under mistake or accident as is concerning argument crimes evidence other State, (Okl.Cr.1979), Burks v. 594 P.2d 771 is without merit. State, grounds, 772 on other Jones v. rev’d Appellant argues proposition (Okl.Cr.1989). Rather, 922, he con P.2d 925 eight that was insufficient evidence only that it served to show that he was tends support Degree Mur conviction for First Accоrdingly, Ap philandering wife-beater. against Appel evidence der. The introduced pellant urges this to find that both lant at trial was direct and circumstan have was inadmissible and should Accordingly, applied in tial. to be test excluded. been determining sufficiency is of the evidence previous goes weight jurisprudence whether, viewing when in the the evidence evi against argument State, any light most favorable to rational prior physical against his dence of his abuse trier of fact could found the essential have recently wife was inadmissible. This Court beyond charged of the crime a rea elements capital in a held ease where the defendant State, Spuehler P.2d sonable doubt. v. 709 “[ejvidence previous his wife that killed (Okl.Cr.1985); State, P.2d 202 Paxton v. 867 spouses between is relevant altercations cert, denied, 1309,1315-16 (Okl.Cr.1993), 513 State, of intent.” v. 887 the issue Hooker 886, 227, 153 U.S. 115 S.Ct. 130 L.Ed.2d cert, 1351, (Okl.Cr.1994), 1359 de P.2d (1994). worthy It is that the notation —nied, -, 164, 133 U.S. 116 S.Ct. judge weight and is the exclusive finding, L.Ed.2d 106 this Court so credibility of the v. evidence. Robedeaux upon prior that in a relied cases which hold cert, State, 417, (Okl.Cr.1993), 866 P.2d 429 feeling, marital homicide of ill case evidence denied, 110, 833, 130 115 S.Ct. spouse threats or similаr conduct one (1994). Further, despite L.Ed.2d 57 conflicts probative motive

toward another to show evidence, not disturb in the Court will State, P.2d Cheney intent. See and/or if jury’s competent verdict evi there is State, (Okl.Cr.1995); Duvall v. support it. dence to cert, (Okl.Cr.1991), P.2d Appellant acknowledges (Okl (1992); only of first murder degree Holt v. P.2d element which .Cr.1989); of malice Lamb was contested the element (Okl.Cr.1988); aforethought. He the State’s Brown v. claims prove beyond probative many respects.... this element can be in They evidence did nature, reasonable doubt. The evidence that can show the extent and location of wounds, boys multiple delicti, wife and the corpus lant stabbed his establish the corrobo squeezed girls testimony times and then death rate of medical examiners and ex placing pert their bodies in various closets depict before witnesses and the crime scene.” State, (Okl. support is and under a bed sufficient to the Smallwood v. 907 P.2d Cr.1995). Further, jury’s “Appellant’s willingness conclusion acted with aforethought. dispute malice Further the conclusion to concede that there is no over the identity injuries intended his victims to die of thе victim or the sus support finds his confession wherein he tained photo is not determinative of the acknowledged graphs’ admissibility.” that two of the victims were still alive when he checked on them later but photographs The at issue in the help he declined to call for in an effort to However, gruesome. case are also ac- save their lives. find from We these facts curately depict the crime scene and corrobo- surrounding killing and circumstances testimony rate the of the medical examiner beyond could have found confession. We find that reasonable doubt that killed the probative substantially value is not out- aforethought. victims with malice weighed by prejudicial impact. Accord- ingly, we cannot find that the trial court ISSUES RELEVANT TO BOTH abused admitting pho- its discretion in these TRIAL STAGES OF tographs into evidence. Appellant complains in his fourth Appellant’s argument It in his proposition rights that his constitutional assignment sixth pervasive of error process, due a fair trial and a fair and reli prosecutorial deprived misconduct him of a sentencing hearing by able were violated fair trial sentencing. Appellant and reliable highly prejudicial admission into evidence of during cites to numerous instances both inflammatory photographs. color The stages of trial in which he contends the photographs complained appeal six of on de prosecutors proper exceeded the bounds of pict the bodies of the victims in advanced prosecutorial advocacy. He claims that the stages decomposition. photographs The prosecutors unfairly expert attacked defense slippage reveal skin and skeletonization as witnesses, appealed passions to the maggot activity. well decomposition as jurors, improperly presented evidence that of the bodies was so extensive that the vic counsel, right had invoked his by appear tims could not be identified their evidence, made reference to facts not mis Appellant argues ance. that because facts law, engaged calling, stated name concerning the location and condition of the personal opinions. voiced Most of the cоm trial, disputed proba bodies at were objected complained ments of were not to at photographs outweighed tive value of the remarks, Accordingly, trial. as to these all prejudicial impact. their plain but error has been waived. Freeman regarding Decisions the introduc cert, (Okl.Cr.), 876 P.2d photographs tion of are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be (1994). L.Ed.2d 503 disturbed absent an abuse discretion. (Okl.Cr. Hooks v. Our review of the record reveals cert, denied, 1993), many of the comments not met with Photographs timely objection prosecutors’ fell within the gruesome inflammatory may range permissible argument. which are be wide None probative egregious admissible where their value is not were so as to have risen to the substantially outweighed danger level of reversible error.- The record also prejudice. unfair McCormick v. 845 reflects that of the few comments issue (Okl.Cr.1993). to, objected objec It is well estab which were some of these “photographs lished that of murder victims tions were sustained. Where the trial court 532 remand, disregard 911 415 Maynard, the im Davis v. F.2d jury the to

admonished Cir.1990). (10th was cured. See proper statement the error (Okl.Cr State, P.2d 116 Romano v. 909 deny In the at bar did not case .1995). given no admonishment was Where having his and the children. killed wife review, requested, again, limited to or is Rather, charge the first his defense to of this plain In no instance where error. degree aforethought with malice was murder level of occurred did the comment rise to the ability he the to form intent that lacked plain “Allegations prosecutorial error. of degree required first murder. The de- for not of a con misconduct do warrant reversal put low fense on evidence that has was such viction unless cumulative effect intelligence bordering on mental retardation. deprive of fair trial.” to the defendant a addition, expert for In an witness the defense (Okl.Cr.1995). 7,19 919 Duckett v. drowning that a near suf- testified incident inappropri not Because we do find that the by Appellant as a child fered caused brain deprived fair ate of a comments testimony damage. was this There trial, affecting jury’s guilt or finding of damage ability his to diminished control emo- penalty, decline assessment of death we This, rage. tions such as irritation аnd how- grant proposition. on relief this ever, upon by the was not the evidence relied give trial court for its decision to the man- FIRST STAGE JURY INSTRUCTIONS slaughter put instruction. That evidence was by taped in Appellant’s on video the State ar proposition his seventh confession, During confession. this gues failing trial court to ade erred lant that when he told his wife that he stated quately included instruct on lesser being job, thought laid off from his she and he claims were offenses defenses which lying. that he was She struck him so hard supported by the The record re evidence. a he few He said saw black seconds. request veals that defense counsel failed to They got fight that “it wild.” into fist went a most of the instructions he now claims were got ‍​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‍proportion. and it of he knew out Before warranted. This Court has held that “where grabbed it a took it her a lesser of she knife. He from evidence warrants included crazy.” “things point It at fense instruction a defendant entitled to and went this is Boyd he his requested the same whether or not.” wife. stabbed (Okl.Cr.1992), v. 1367 839 P.2d O.S.1991, 711(2), § 21 Under homicide cert, denied, 908,113 3005,125 509 U.S. S.Ct. Degree Manslaughter perpe- First “[w]hen (1993). However, also L.Ed.2d 697 we have design death, a еffect trated without and “[j]ury held on in instructions lesser passion, in a in a heat of but cruel and cluded need offenses theories defense manner, by dangerous unusual or means of only be given when there is evidence in the weapon....” We find that under the facts support record to such instructions.” Powell case, passion manslaughter this the heat of (Okl.Cr.1995), v. cert. simply instructions were warranted — -, regarding the evidence because the evidence L.Ed.2d 560 dysfunction may the brain which affect- have ability rage ed to control his does Appellant first calls at this Court’s negate Although Ap- his intent kill. regarding tention to the instructions heat of that he pellant claims was unable to control passion manslaughter given by which were rage, preclude his does not the conclu- He these the trial court. claims instructions family the time killed his he sion he constitutionally were deficient under logical intended actions. results his holdings Tenth v. Circuit’s United States Cir.1985) (10th Accordingly, on Lofton, F.2d whether instructions (10th Degree Manslaughter First were Maynard, Davis F.2d Cir. sufficient 1989), under is not conse- granted judgment vacated on Davis cert Lofton Davis, grounds, Sajfte case quence оther because these instruc- (1990), tions were not warranted evidence. deficiency Mlling par is harm- that he could not remember Any in these instructions psychologist less. ents and testified that if the parents defendant had Mlled his he did not Appellant’s argument next concerns Sellers, doing. what he realize was 809 P.2d Degree Manslaughter an instruction on First at 686. This Court held this evidence requested given or but which which was was not sufficient warrant an instruction by Appellant required the evi contends Similarly, pres in automatism. out, points Appellant dence. As “this Court case, Appellant’s ent the evidence border O.S.1981, 711(2), § 21 held that sets forth damage line mental retardation and brain ways degree two in which the offense of first require was not sufficient to an instruction 1) may manslaughter be committed: when on the defense of automatism. perpetrated design without a to effect death in passion and in a heat of but a cruel and 2) perpetrated

unusual manner or when with Appellant next contends that the evi design by means of a out a to effect death dence warranted an instruction on second State, dangerous weapon.” 829 Cаmron degree depraved mind murder. An instruc 47, (Okl.Cr.1992), citing, Moody 51 this tion on crime is warranted where the State, 23, (1927), 38 259 P. 159 and Okl.Cr. supports finding a that the homicide (Okl.Cr Smith v. 652 P.2d 304 “perpetrated by imminently an act dan on, .1982) (overruled grounds). It is other gerous person evincing to another and a de argued supported the evidence an in mind, life, praved regardless of human al type degree man struction on the first though any premeditated design without slaughter passion heat as an which omits any particular effect the death of individua instruction, again, only element. This is war Appellant argues l.”10 that the record in Appellant if ranted there is evidence that did supports case his contention be design not have a to effect death. As was dysfunction cause his brain could have above, discussed the nature of way him in caused to act a that evinced a actions omits a reasonable inference that he depraved disregard mind in extreme for hu did not have the intent to Mil his victims. Mlling man life but without the intention of This instruction was not warranted. any person particular. argu We find this

Next, argues that the de may ment untenable. While the record be fensе of unconsciousness or automatism was support finding found to a warranted the evidence and should have depraved disregard evinced a mind in given despite been the fact that such was life, quantum leap human it would take a requested. directs rage find that the victims of his were chosen 152(6) O.S.1991, § Court’s attention to randomly. trial court did not in not err exempts culpability “[p]ersons which from giving degree an instruction on second mur charged who committed the act without be der. ing conscious thereof.” has This Court ad prior holding dressed this defense eases Finally, argues “may that automatism be used in situations Jury by giving trial court erred Uniform criminal where the otherwise conduct of an on causation. This instruction Instruction involuntary of an act individual the result jury informed the that: beyond completely which is the individual’s may person No be convicted of Murder knowledge control.” Sellers v. cert, Degree the First unless his conduct caused (Okl.Cr.), denied, 809 P.2d person allegedly A the death of the Mlled. U.S. 116 L.Ed.2d 252 by conduct if the conduct is death is caused (1991). also, See Jones v. cert, bringing factor in about the (Okl.Cr.1982), substantial dangerous and the conduct is death Sellers, destroys life.11 the defendant had said threatens 450; O.S.1991, Original § 10. 21 701.8. Record at OUJI-CR426. juror to found a rational could have been this instruction should Appellant contends morally culpa- there was no made the defendant less given because have not have been persons cause of the victims’ who have no such regarding the ble than those dispute 322-23, jury have argues that the could impediments. deaths. He Id. 492 U.S. instruction to be an alter- Fur- 106 L.Ed.2d at 280-81. misunderstood S.Ct. at degree ther, rejected argument first theory of it the State’s native murder guilty be found all adequately that he could was able to consider believed design any to effect death. mitigating even absent evidence even without murder the facts of this case did jury mitigating it is true that evidence. While instruction given, we dis- require this instruction be at not U.S. at S.Ct. may argument that it agree Supreme The Court held with L.Ed.2d at 280. instructions, jury. The when have misled the that: whole, accurately applica- state the read as a case, in In this the absence of instructions preclude possibility that the law and the ble jury informing the that it could consider appropriate it to

jury may have believed give mitigating to the evidеnce and effect degree ab- Appellant of first’ murder convict and mental retardation [defendant’s] argument finding of intent. This sent background by declining impose to abused merit. without penalty, conclude that the the death we jury provided a vehicle for was with STAGE ISSUES SECOND response’ expressing its ‘reasoned moral to argues assign in ninth Appellant rendering sentencing in its that evidence that the trial court’s second ment of error decision. precluded stage inappropriately instructions Id. 492 U.S. at jury giving consideration to the from due L.Ed.2d at 284. mitigating of evidence of his brain effect case, jury In was not so dysfunction mental retarda and borderline jury that restricted. The was instructed argument Appellant support of his tion. which, “[m]itigating are those circumstances Penry Lynaugk, cites may mercy, in and be considered as fairness In Pen 106 L.Ed.2d reducing degree extenuating or of moral ry, presented was at trial that the evidence The culpability or blame. determination diagnosed having or had been as defendant you mitigating circumstances is for what are damage mentally retard ganic brain and was jurors to under the facts and as resolve However, sentencing ed. under the Texas circumstances of this case.”12 While the “special jury was to answer three scheme jury specifically that evi- was not instructed basically they if found issues” which asked Appellant’s mental condition was dence of aggravating circumstances. the existence it mitigating, it was instructed that could jury was instructed that it could While the miti- what it wanted to consider as determine phas all submitted in both consider evidence argued gating Defense counsel evidence. answering special issue es of trial Appel- mitigating value of the evidence of weigh questions, were not instructed to dysfunction and decreased men- lant’s brain the miti aggravating circumstances with stage ability jury to the in second tal Although defense counsel gating evidence. adequately provided the instructions these argued that of the defendant’s men jury expressing its “reasoned a vehicle mitigating, jury tal condition was response” moral to this evidence. Accord- that it could consider such evi instructed ingly, proposition this warrants no relief. mitigating and that it could take dence as mitigating evidencе into consideration alleged of five The State the existence imposing the defendant’s sentence. regard to aggravating circumstances with 1) each murder Supreme acknowledged that ev- each count of murder: that The 2) heinous, cruel; especially atrocious or mental retardation was idence of the defendant’s probability impulses existed a ability to control his there and decreased 478; Original Record at OUJI-CR438. continuing actually they attempted lant would constitute threat witnessed it as 3) society; protect murders were Appellant. committed their mother from When 4) prosecution; happened, or stabbing to avoid lawful arrest started great boys. created a risk of death to girls the two When the two came 5) person; squeezed more than one down the hall them until felony previously involving they convicted of a became unconscious and then died. person. the use or threat of violence to a The medical examiner testified that Jenni- alleged aggra- found each of these fer Smith was stabbed four times. Two of regard with vators exist the counts damagеd the stab wounds muscular tissues children, involving the and found all but the body and did not enter cavities. The most third, murder committed to avoid ar- lawful artery severe stab wound severed an in her rest, regard involving to the count Jen- neck. This wound would have resulted proposition Appel- nifer In his tenth Smith. bleeding. extensive testimony There was no challenges propriety validity lant as to which stab wound was inflicted first aggravating these circumstances. long about how she was conscious. The med- ical examiner was unable to determine with Appellant argues first that certainty girls. the cause of death of the two jury’s support finding evidence did not He found no stab wounds on their bodies and heinous, especially that each murder was speculated that the cause of their deaths was atrocious or cruel because the facts indicate asphyxial injury. some form of unconsciousness, death, The medical if that not occurred examiner testified that he found that at least quickly with each victim and there no four stab wounds had been inflicted on Lada- design great suffering. to cause We have rian Carter. One stab wound heinous, was to the held that “the atrocious or cruel neck, abdomen, one to the and two to the aggravating requires showing circumstance a region. any chest He that testified of these physical preced that torture or serious abuse fatal, could have been Hooks, but none would have ed the victim’s murder.” 862 P.2d at Carter, immediately. killed the victim also, State, Glen 1282. See v. 742 P.2d Stouffer cert, Jr., was found to have been 562, (Okl.Cr.1987), denied, stabbed also. 563 484 U.S. However, decomposition 1036, (1988). body of his 763, 108 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d 779 made it more difficult for the medical necessary exam- prove beyond It is that the State a iner determine the extent of the stab consciously reasonable doubt that the victims identify wounds. He was able one stab suffered death. before “Absent evidence of possible wound to the area chest and another physical suffering pri- conscious of the victim stab wound to the death, abdomen. or required or torture ‍​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‍serious physical abuse standard Perry is met.” This evidence does not indicate that death State, 521, (Okl.Cr.1995), v. 893 P.2d 534 any for of these victims was instantaneous. State, citing 555, v. 816 P.2d 565 Battenfield The long evidence is less clear as to how eаch cert, (Okl.Cr.1991), denied, 943, 503 U.S. 112 so, of the victims remained conscious. Even (1992). 1491, Torture, S.Ct. 117 L.Ed.2d 632 support finding the evidence does that Jen- purposes aggravator, of this can also part nifer Smith was conscious for at least of cruelty. include evidence of extreme mental struggle Appellant. boys her with suf- State, (Okl. 586, Hawkins v. 891 P.2d 597 too, consciously they, fered fighting as were cert, — denied, Cr.), -, U.S. 116 S.Ct. Appellant prior they with to their death as 480,133 (1995). L.Ed.2d 408 Further, protect tried to their mother. they

The evidence of the circumstances stabbing sur- evidence that witnessed the rounding supports deaths the victims in this their finding mother of extreme Appellant’s ease came from cruelty. Although confession and mental the circumstances testimony surrounding of the medical examiner. girls the death of the are not as police established, clearly lant’s statements to the indicate that is sufficient fighting heinous, Jennifer was him at the time he sustain the atrocious or cruel stabbed her. The children were all in the circumstance for these two deaths because boys they house when this occurred and the two would have been conscious for at least 536 — cert, -, (Okl.Cr.1995), being U.S.

part of the time that were (1996). 1438, 134 See squeezed to death. 116 L.Ed.2d 559 S.Ct. (Okl. 159, also, 175 Castro 844 P.2d argues also the narrowed Appellant cert, 844,114 Cr.1992), denied, 510 U.S. S.Ct. heinous, or atrocious interpretation (1993). 126 L.Ed.2d has aggravating as is current cruel circumstance persuaded us in this case. otherwise unconstitutionally vague. This ly applied, is rejected argument. See Wil has Next, “great submits (Okl.Cr. liamson v. aggravating circumstance risk of death” cert, denied, 1991), unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. He do not We previously has been admits issue differently choose to hold now. Braun, rejected. addressed See also, May- Cartwright at P.2d 798. See argues there next (10th nard, 1203,1221-22 Cir.1986), 802 F.2d support the find insufficient evidence to grounds reh’g, Rev’d on other 822 F.2d children were ing that the murders of the ajfd, prevent to avoid or a lawful arrest committed (1988). However, that, L.Ed.2d 372 prosecution. or This Court has held circumstance, by this Court to this issue. We aggravating defini asks reconsider “[t]his tion, predicate to do requires be a decline so this time. there crime, murder, separate from the for which argument next attacks prose appellant seeks to avoid arrest propriety aggrаvating circum two Barnett v. cution.” stances, “prior felony conviction” violent (Okl.Cr.1993). Appellant’s to murder intent “continuing society.” to threat He contends prosecution in to avoid order arrest that error occurred because the relied separate of crime must the commission this upon the same evidence to find the existence inferred evi often be from circumstantial aggravators. This evi of both these State, McGregor v. 885 P.2d dence. prior — cert, of a for assault and dence conviction (Okl.Cr.1994), denied, U.S. 1385 battery weapon arising a dangerous (1995). -, 116 S.Ct. from an incident in which re case, present In murder of the the Jenni- peatedly stabbed girlfriend. his crime, provides sepa- predicate fer Smith recognizes previously that this has re children, rate from the murders of the from Robedeaux, jected argument. 866 See sought Appellant can to have which be found 435; State, P.2d at 850 P.2d Pickens v. pro- Appellant’s to arrest. confession avoid cert, (Okl.Cr.1993), 510 336 U.S. boys kill evidence that two saw him vided (1994). 942, 127 114 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 232 the girls his wife and that were also only evi record reflects this was the Evi- in the house when he Jennifer. stabbed support “prior used to violent felo dence dence cleaned house ny aggravating conviction” circumstance. to lied to relatives failure cover for Jennifer’s However, despite Appellant’s assertion to the keep appointments provides to circumstantial contrary, we find in the oth evidence record from which inferred that evidence it can be prior supports than this which er conviction avoiding Appellant was concerned with detec- “continuing society” aggrava threat to any tion of these crimes. Because ting circumstance. This is the evidence of could have him as the children identified history upon physical abuse his mother, person who killed their it is reason- presented by Appel and the wife evidence prevent infer that he able to killed them expert has diminish lant’s witnesses that he happening. this from ability rage. Accordingly, to control ed his argues aggravating Appellant also that this presented the evidence at trial was sufficient interpreted circumstance has such been jury’s support findings regarding both way unconstitutionally vague that it is aggravating оf these circumstances. previously This ad overbroad. Court has argues “continuing without also that the dressed this issue and found it to be State, society” aggravating merit. Braun v. 909 P.2d 798 threat circumstance (Okl.Cr Cargle v. recognizes that this He is unconstitutional. .1995). rejected constitutional repeatedly Court has aggravating circumstance. on this attacks impact evidence is consti Victim P.2d Mitchell v. See unduly tutionally acceptable unless “it is so — cert, denied, -, (Okl.Cr.1994), U.S. prejudicial it renders the trial funda (1995). 95,133 Howev L.Ed.2d 50 116 S.Ct. Tennessee, Payne mentally unfair.” er, those this Court to reconsider he asks 808, 825, 2597, 2608, U.S. request. decline this decisions. We Appellant argues L.Ed.2d trial, stage impact evidence exceeded the During the second State that the victim Carter, impact through propriety bounds of when Glen Sr. evidence of victim introduced witnesses, made a comment which did not fall within the testimony of two Marietta mother, proper impact victim Love, bounds of evidence.13 and Glen Jennifer Smith’s Appellant is correct in assertion that this Carter, Sr., his of the four children the father inappropriate comment was evidence of vic propоsition In his eleventh who were killed. However, impact. it cannot tim be found concerning issues Appellant raises several unduly prejudicial have so as to have been impact victim evidence the use of fundamentally rendered the trial unfair. stage of trial. second argues Payne v. Ten Appellant also argues oc Appellant first that error capital nessee and OHahoma’s amended sen impact in the of victim evidence at curred use tencing opened floodgates have statute to follow trial because the State failed highly for the introduction of emotional and statutory requirements presentation in the position It irrelevant evidence. is his testimony. He contends that the rele such impact place no victim evidence has OHa- provide that such evidence can vant statutes penalty death scheme as our statutes homa’s presentation only through introduced be require balancing aggravating test of cir statements, through testimony. of written mitigation impact cumstances and and victim argument support of this he directs argues evidence is relevant to neither. He attention to Neill v. Court’s impact operates that victim as irrel — cert, denied, (Okl.Cr.1994), 537, 553 evant, improper, highly charged, emotion evi -, 791, (1996), 116 133 L.Ed.2d 740 S.Ct. every capital present is in case dence which O.S.Supp.1992, recognition that 22 for its and has the same effect as an unconstitution 991a(C) 984, provide guidance §§ 984.1 and Appel ally aggravating circumstance. broad impact regarding the use of victim evidence. specific implores adopt this Court to lant 984.1(A) provides § O.S.Supp.1992, Title 22 becoming a guidelines prevent to this from victim, or a member of the immedi “[a] recently “superaggravator.” This ad Court victim, family may present a writ ate of the proffered and such dressed these concerns or, impact statement at the court’s ten victim (Okl guidelines Cargle, in 909 P.2d at 824-30 sentencing option, appear personally at the .Cr.1995). oral proceeding present and the statement Finally, Appellant argues that error ly.” language makes reference to While this statement, jury in it occurred this case because the impact a written victim does impact victim impact structions did not address the prеclude the introduction of victim Further, sentencing place in the deci through testimony. evidence or its evidence jury in this it is true that the specifically has found that “the trial sion. While Court given regarding the ques case no instructions may court wish to consider whether a statements, trial, impact at the time of may preferable be a victim tion-and-answer format required. Although this Court way was not controlling the relevant victim such method recently promulgated an instruction to assist jury.” to a impact presented evidence is stated, being commit- these crimes that are world com- victims to 13. Glen Carter “What the society just day day ing just people people to when we let in our have to suffer ted? More go prison gone.” to and let them out they come kill their ones are because know loved and do the same act. What X, come back Transcript at 32. Trial going people got take? More to be it[sic] 538 Pickens, 339; 63; v. evidence, P.2d at Romano 850 using impact we jury in victim 368, (Okl.Cr.1993), State, ajfd, 392 instruction was 847 P.2d making clear that the did so Oklahoma, 1, only. at 828-29. 114 S.Ct. prospectively 512 U.S. apply Romano bar, (1994). specific 2004, case at 1 will not now Cargle, as 129 L.Ed.2d We impact was not prior holding. on victim evidence depart

instruction from this absence of given, it found nor was argues instruc Finally, Appellant that the unre- defendant’s sentence such rendered the jury in which the regarding the manner tions Accordingly, present in the case as liable. aggravating circumstance set weigh was to of such an Cargle, the absence instruction proof. Again, improper an forth burden sentencing require reversal does acknowledges preponderance of that this he proceeding. repeatedly standard has been the evidence Appellant sets forth proposition In his next Mitchell, 884 approved this Court. See rejected by previously arguments four State, Rojem v. 753 at 1206. See also P.2d appellate preserve such for in order to cert, denied, (Okl.Cr.), 359, 370 488 U.S. P.2d argues that error occurred He first review. (1988); 249, 102 L.Ed.2d 238 109 S.Ct. failed to inform the the instructions because (Okl.Cr. State, Brogie 695 P.2d findings regarding mitigat jury that its 1985). issue. Again, we decline to revisit this unani ing did not have to be circumstances has held that where This Court acknowledges that this issue has mous. He present, there cаn be no there is no error by this Court and previously been addressed State, of error. Brecheen v. accumulation prior occasions relief has been de that on cert, denied, (Okl.Cr.1987), 1067,1081 Harjo v. 882 P.2d nied. See cert, — 909, 108 denied, 485 U.S. S.Ct. (Okl.Cr.1994), -, (1988). However, nu when there have been See 131 L.Ed.2d (Okl. irregularities during the course of merous Bryson v. 876 P.2d also cert, prejudice rights of trial that tend to Cr.1994), 1090, 115 defendant, required be if the Pickens, reversal will (1995); L.Ed.2d all errors was to cumulative effect of Although Appellant asks 850 P.2d deny defendant a fair trial. Bechtel v. this issue at this this Court to reconsider (Okl.Cr.1987). While time, so. we decline do in the case that there it can be found argues Appellant also that the instructions irregularities during were a few the course mitigation given to the issue trial, together, these cannot even taken jurors ignore mitigating evi- permitted the great found to have been so as to have be seriously altogether, and diminished dence Accordingly, Appellant a fair trial. denied mitigating present- the effect of the is not warranted. relief Appellant advises this Court ed in this case. instructions to those that the same or similar MANDATORY SENTENCE REVIEW upheld

given in case were Pickens, challenge in 850 P.2d at against this statutory In accordance with our otherwise at this 339. We decline to hold duty, we must now determine whether the time. imposed the influ death under sentence Next, passion, prejudice, any other arbi Appellant alleges that the trial ence of factor, trary in and also whether the evidence when it failed to court committed error jury’s finding alleged jurors supports a could consider struct statutory aggravating parole circumstances. See of life or ‍​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‍life without even sentence 701.13(C). O.S.1991, § an We are satisfied though they had found the existence of any passion, prejudice nor other arbi an instruc neither aggravating circumstance. Such trary jury’s factor contributed to the sentenc required is not and this Court has con tion carefully reviewing sistently rejected argument. ing determination. After this See Valdez (Okl.Cr.1995), it presented, we also find that cert. the evidence — -, jury’s finding aggrava supported the of the (1995); ting Bryson, 876 P.2d at 262- circumstances. L.Ed.2d 341 GRANTINGREHEARING ORDER warranting reversal or Finding no error modification, Judgment and Appellant’s Sen- Petitioner, Smith, Roderick L. was convict- AFFIRMED. tence is Degree in ed of five counts of First Murder County,

the District Court Oklahoma Case No. He was sentenced to CF-93-3968. JOHNSON, P.J., CHAPEL, V.P.J., and Judgment death on each count. From this LANE, J., concur. perfected timely a and Sentence Petitioner appeal argument to this Court. Oral LUMPKIN, J., concurs results. 8, 1996, May on and a decision was heard REQUEST ORDER GRANTING published opinion rendered in a handed down FOR PUBLICATION 1,1996. this Court October See Smith (Okl.Cr.1996). 932 P.2d 521 Subse- 6, 1996, granted On December this Court quently, a Petition for Petitioner filed Re- request rehearing in the Appellant’s hearing. grant styled This order did not above ease. request Petitioner bases his for re clarified an issue discussed relief but hearing opinion upon the contention that the opinion previously down in this case handed authority previously conflict Granting on October Order Court. See this Rules before Court of Rehearing published. Subsequently, was not O.S.1991, 18, App., Appeals, Ch. Criminal 11, 1996, Appellant a Mo- on December filed 3.14(B)(1). Rule Petitioner directs Granting Rehear- tion to Publish the Order part opinion Court’s attention to ing reasoning judges that trial should have issue of whether Peti which addressed the regard- discussion the benefit of this Court’s was entitled to an instruction on sec tioner ing requests on second de- for instructions degree depraved ond mind murder. The gree which is contained therein. murder correctly opinion noted that an instruction on Having motion this Appellant’s examined degree of murder is warranted where request Court finds that should supports finding that the evidence a be, hereby and the same is GRANTED. The immi “perpetrated homicide was an act Granting Rehearing issued in Order nently dangerous person and to another publication. released for lant’s case shall be mind, evincing depraved regardless of hu life, although any premeditated man without IT ORDERED. IS SO any design particular to effect death O.S.1991, § 701.8. How individual.” See AND THE WITNESS OUR HANDS ever, opinion went on to find that day of SEAL OF THIS COURT this 13th an instruction on this facts did not warrant January, 1997. degree because the Petitioner had of murder Chapel Charles S. /s/ randomly. analy not chosen his victims This CHAPEL, CHARLES S. “any particular language on the sis focused Judge Presiding narrowly, individual” and construed it too Reta M. Strubhar limiting person’s /s/ its use to situations where STRUBHAR, RETA M. any against particular wrath is not directed Presiding Judge

Vice degree depraved mind person. While second situations, may apply to such it murder still Gary Lumpkin L. /s/ limited to such situatiоns. Con has not been LUMPKIN, L. GARY degree depraved mind victions for second Judge upheld in cases where the murder have been F. James Lane Quit- /s/ See targeted. specifically victim was LANE, F. JAMES (Okl.Cr.1989); Hams v. 779 P.2d 990 Judge (Okl.Cr.1987); Dorsey v. 739 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr.1985). State, 698 P.2d 33 Hall v. A. Johnson Charles /s/ applied JOHNSON, Allowing that this crime has been A. CHARLES may have situations where the accused Judge victim but did not to harm the intended kill, WIRTZ, Jr., Appellant, the facts of we find that under

intend L. Robert case, still not Petitioner was an instruction. Given entitled such trial, only reason- presented at County Stanley and the Board of GLANZ specifically inference is that Petitioner able County, of Tulsa Commissioners targeted and that he intended to his victims Oklahoma, Appellees. Again, kill the trial court did not err them. failing the crime of to instruct the No. 87564. degree depraved mind murder. second Finally, Petitioner asks this Court also to ruling regarding its whether Peti-

reconsider Oklahoma, Appeals manslaughter was entitled to instruc- tioner 4. Division No. Again, contends that tions. Petitioner controlling authority. opinion contrary Oct. 1996. allegation have reviewed this and have We Rehearing Denied Dec. upon found that this issue was decided based appropriate controlling authority.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed regarding degree depraved the second

above instruction, we find that

mind murder Rehearing

Petition for should be GRANT- However,

ED. no relief is warranted. THE OF

IT IS THEREFORE ORDER that this Petition for Rehear-

THIS COURT

ing required. no is GRANTED with relief of this ‍​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‍court is directed to issue Clerk mandate forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED. AND THE

WITNESS OUR HANDS day THIS this 6th

SEAL OF COURT

December, 1996. Charles A. Johnson

/s/ JOHNSON, CHARLES A.

Presiding Judge Chapel Charles S.

/s/

CHARLES S. CHAPEL Presiding Judge

Vice Gary Lumpkin L.

/s/ L.

GARY LUMPKIN

Judge in Result

Concur F. James Lane

/s/ LANE, JAMES F.

Judge Reta M. Strubhar

/s/ STRUBHAR, RETA M.

Judge

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Dec 6, 1996

Citation: 932 P.2d 521

Docket Number: F-94-1199

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.