Court Opinion

ID: 9546104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:24:57.105156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:00.054653
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part:
I concur in the affirmation of this conviction. However, I am of the opinion that the remarks of the prosecutor were so improper as to require modification of this sentence. The majority states, and I agree, that the unobjected to comments by Assistant District Attorney Neal Whittington did not constitute fundamental error, so as to require reversal. Supra at 692. See also Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765 (Okl.Cr.1985). However, we have stated that “[i]n determining whether the sentence is excessive, we will consider the entire record, including improper matter received without objection, and, where justice requires, will modify the sentence.” Freeman v. State, 681 P.2d 84 (Okl.Cr.1984).
In this case, the prosecutor three times called the appellant a liar, and made comments that can only be construed as an attempt to create societal alarm in the minds of the jury. We have previously condemned these arguments. See Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368 (Okl.Cr.1981). Although the prosecutor’s request that the jurors picture one of their family members as the victim was met with a successful objection and admonishment, this comment obviously was improper, and could also have had an affect on the punishment verdict returned.
Accordingly, I would hold that this sentence is excessive in light of the prosecutor’s unfortunate remarks, and would modify the sentence herein to twenty-five (25) years’ imprisonment.