Court Opinion

ID: 9592434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:14:13.106346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:36.028674
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part.
I concur in the affirmance of the convictions for Kidnapping, Robbery with Firearms, Larceny of an Automobile and Arson. However, I disagree with the reversal of the murder convictions. I find that Munson v. State, 758 P.2d 324 (Okl.Cr.1988) does apply to this case and under that decision, Appellant was provided the same notice as Mun-son that a verdict of felony murder could be returned by the jury. Munson represents only a procedural change in the law. Therefore, under Salazar v. State, 852 P.2d 729, 737 (Okl.Cr.1993) and Hain v. State, 852 P.2d 744, 753 (Okl.Cr.1993) it can be applied to cases tried prior to its enactment. Further, Munson was applied in the co-defendant’s case, Hain v. State, 852 P.2d at 752, to resolve a question of dismissal of the underlying felony supporting the convictions of felony-murder. The record in Hain also reveals the felony-murder instruction was given based on the joint informations filed as to both Hain and Lambert acting as co-defendants, i.e. the defendants were jointly charged only with malice aforethought murder without an alternative felony murder information being filed. If the rule in Munson applied to the defendants in Munson and Hain, then, as a rule of law, it should equally apply to the Appellant in this case. I strongly dissent to the Court’s decision to reverse the convictions for Murder, First Degree, in Counts I and II and remand for a new trial.