Court Opinion

ID: 9781829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:32:57.920852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:39.916981
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge:
Specially Concurs.
{ 1 While I agree with the majority's holding and reasoning, I write separately to emphasize why I believe that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not arise from failing to ask for the clarifying instruction advocated by Appellant. Requesting an instruction with a "meaningful definition of life without possibility of parole" (Appellant's Brief at 12) serves only to place an inordinate amount of emphasis on the fact that certain parole matters are outside the province of the jury. The "clarification" only highlights to the jury the fact that regardless of their intent to confine the defendant to prison for life, their decision can be overturned by executive measures. See 57 0.8. § 382. It is my opinion that this "clarification" could make the jury feel more compelled to sentence the defendant to death.
T2 This Court has consistently held that the uniform instruction setting forth the punishment of life without parole is sufficiently clear and requires no explanation. See Malicoat v. State, 2000 OK CR 1, ¶ 28, 992 P.2d 383, 400 and cases cited therein. I can conceive of no situation in which failing to request an instruction that could serve to injure the defendant could be considered unsound trial strategy and serve as the basis for an ineffective assistance claim.