Court Opinion

ID: 9570276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:21:54.902388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:27.316180
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Although I concur in the affirmance of the appellant’s conviction, I respectfully dissent to the refusal to modify on the basis of improper prosecutorial comments. My examination of the record reveals that the prosecutor improperly made comments relating to societal alarm when he told the jury that children are “not safe anywhere” when crimes like lewd molestation are committed “in a child’s own bedroom.” The prosecutor also mentioned the “classic” case where a man “pulls up in a big black car ... gives a little girl a piece of candy and gets her in the car with him.” This Court has consistently condemned remarks invoking societal alarm. See Henderson v. State, 716 P.2d 691, 693 (Okl.Cr.1986) (Parks, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368, 369 (Okl.Cr.1981); Cooper v. State, 584 P.2d 234, 238 (Okl.Cr.1978). The prosecutor also improperly alluded to the possibility of pardon and parole, and requested sympathy for the victim. See Satterlee v. State, 549 P.2d 104, 111 (Okl.Cr.1976); Scott v. State, 649 P.2d 560, 563 (Okl.Cr.1982).
While I concur in the affirmation of the conviction, I am of the opinion that the improper remarks of the prosecutor require modification of the appellant’s sentence. See Henderson v. State, 716 P.2d 691, 693 (Okl.Cr.1986) (Parks, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Freeman v. State, 681 P.2d 84, 86 (Okl.Cr.1984). Accordingly, I would hold that this sentence is excessive in light of the prosecutor’s improper remarks, and would modify appellant’s sentence to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment.