Court Opinion

ID: 9633431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:47:27.420946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:53.880937
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice
Presiding Judge, concurs in part/dissents in part:
I concur in the Court’s decision that the convictions for Burglary in the First Degree, Kidnapping and Larceny of a Motor Vehicle should be affirmed. However, I must dissent to the Court's analysis of mutually antagonistic defenses based on the facts of this case.
The Court correctly states the law set forth in Van Woundenberg v. State, 720 P.2d 328 (Okl.Cr.1986) and Master v. State, 702 P.2d 375 (Okl.Cr.1985) that “defenses are antagonistic where each defendant is trying to exculpate himself and inculpate his codefendant”. However, in this ease neither defendant is claiming innocence but level of culpability for the offenses they admit they participated in committing. The Court disregards the law relating to principals in the commission of a criminal offense and determines the statements relating to level of culpability constitute mutually antagonistic defenses. The real issue is whether the rule in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), that an individual cannot receive a sentence of death for murder by an accomplice unless the individual knew the killing would take place, knew lethal force would be used, killed, or attempted the killing, is applicable to either or both of the defendants in this case based on the evidence presented. While I recognize that Enmund addressed a felony murder fact situation, the principles set forth by the Court must still be considered. While the evidence may be contradictory we must review the decision of the jury from the perspective of whether there is any evidence in the record to support that verdict. In this case the facts show that both defendants participated as principals in each of the offenses with each only denying that they committed the coup de grace for the crimes of rape, murder and burning of the victim. These are not antagonistic defenses but go only to the degree of fault which might be relevant for mitigation of punishment or review of the death penalty. In addition, since the “defenses” in reality went only to mitigate the level of culpability for punishment and did not exculpate the guilt of either, the positions did not constitute inconsistent defenses which would warrant the granting of additional preemptory challenges pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 655.
The Court bases its analysis on speculation that the State did not prove individual intent by each defendant as to each of the convictions it reverses. However, intent most often is proved by circumstantial evidence and the jury must determine its sufficiency based on the weight and credit they give to it. As an appellate court we review only to determine if evidence was presented which supports the verdict of the *1372jury. In this case circumstantial evidence was presented from which the jury could determine that intent was proved. Therefore, all their verdicts should be affirmed.
I agree with the Court that error occurred in the sentencing stage which would require the First Degree Murder conviction to be remanded for resentencing pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.1989, § 701.10a. The admission of co-defendant Cannon’s confession violated Appellant’s rights under Article 2, § 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The error in this case was not harmless therefore a resentencing trial is required.