Court Opinion

ID: 9631400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:37:02.738791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:17.496138
License: Public Domain

*624LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the judgment and sentence in this case. However, I do not agree with the application of Snow v. State, 876 P.2d 291, 297 (Okl.Cr. 1994), to the facts of this ease. The Court seeks to apply an interpretation to the language in Snow which does not comport with either the criteria or the analysis in Snow. In effect, the Court’s contorted view of the application of the surmised intent of a defendant would ensure a vacating of the “to knowingly create a great risk of death to more than one person” aggravator in toto. I strongly disagree with that interpretation. The evidence in this case, when properly viewed in light of our construction of the statutory aggravator, is more than sufficient to support the “to knowingly create a great risk of death to more than one person” ag-gravator. Therefore, the Court is not required to reweigh the evidence to find the death penalty is supported by the law and facts in this ease.