Opinion ID: 2617828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The trial court supplemented the list of aggravating factors to be considered at sentencing sua sponte and refused to grant a continuance to meet the court imposed factors.

Text: The appropriateness of the court considering the two additional aggravating factors is fully discussed herein in Section III, supra. Those aggravating factors were part and parcel of the crimes charged and the trial court's sua sponte listing of them for consideration is not evidence of a prejudicial attitude but rather constitutes the trial court's proper performance of its statutory duties. 6. The trial court sought to cross-examine Bryan Lankford at the second Motion for New Trial despite lengthy examinations by both parties. Failing to get a desired response, the district court struck the testimony of Bryan Lankford. It is unfair to say that the trial court sought to cross-examine Bryan Lankford at the second motion for new trial. The court simply asked Bryan Lankford questions for the purpose of clarification. This was absolutely proper. As stated above, the granting of a new trial is a discretionary decision made by the trial judge. In a situation where a defendant requests a new trial because of recanted testimony, the trial court must be satisfied that the original testimony was false and that the new testimony is true if the judge is to grant a new trial. Accordingly, it is vital that the trial judge be allowed to ask questions for clarification and for the gathering of information during a hearing on a motion for new trial. The court did not err in interrogating Bryan Lankford or in striking his testimony. 7. The trial court examined several witnesses at the Second Motion for New Trial hearing in an attempt to elicit testimony favorable to the State's position. Upon reviewing the record we are not convinced that the purpose of the trial court's examination of witnesses was an attempt to elicit testimony favorable to the State's position. However, even if the motivation alleged by Lankford were true, Lankford failed to specify the exact incidents of this alleged misconduct. As a result, he asks us to do what defense counsel said in its brief we cannot do, look into Judge Reinhardt's heart and mind to see if he was prejudiced toward the defendant or enflamed by the circumstances of the crime. We find this allegation without merit. 8. The trial court suggested witnesses and motions to the state at the Second Motion for New Trial hearing. In this allegation defense counsel once again fails to identify specific points in the record to support this general allegation. Furthermore, Lankford fails to argue or establish that any prejudice resulted from these suggestions if in fact they were made.