Court Opinion

ID: 9795733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:37:10.973079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:30.428402
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, J.;:
Concurring in Result.
T1 I concur in the result reached in this opinion, but disagree with some of the analysis used.
T2 First, the Court, in its discussion of Proposition I, uses aider and abettor language from Torres v. State, 962 P.2d 3, 15 (Okl.Cr.1998). That language from Torres is inconsistent with Oklahoma's law regarding principals and is in conflict with this Court's unanimous analysis of the same issue in Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904, 914-16 (Okl.Cr.1997). I therefore restate my disagreement with this language, as I did in my concurring in results opinion in Torres.
T3 Second, with respect to Proposition VIII, I find the present situation distinguishable from those presented in Jackson v. State, 964 P.2d 875, 886 (Okl.Cr.1998) and Johnson v. State, 905 P.2d 818, 822 (Okl.Cr.1995). Here, the trial judge ruled, in camera, the witness had no valid privilege to invoke. Thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the witness to be called to the stand to testify regarding matters to which he had been informed he had no valid privilege. Moreover, the failure to testify at least implied that Walter Banks was personally involved in the crime, as acknowledged in Appellant's brief, and Appellant seeks to use that fact to support his ineffectiveness of counsel claim.
T4 Third, I disagree with the Court's use of a "reasonable hypothesis" analysis in its review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstance of a murder committed to avoid or prevent lawful arrest or prosecution. The Court continues to use this analysis in its review of evidence introduced in both the guilt stage and in second stage proceedings, and I continue to object to it, as I did in Wackerly v. State, 12 P.3d 1, 20 (Okl.Or.2000)(Lumpkin, J., Concur in results).
T5 Finally, upon review of "Appellant's 3.11 Motion to Supplement and Application for Evidentiary Hearing", I agree with the Court's decision to deny the application. The motion does not comply with Rule 8.11, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, ChLh.18, App. (2000) in that it sets out what is hoped to be discovered at an eviden-tiary hearing rather than evidence which has already been discovered and Appellant desires to submit for inclusion in the record. Speculation is not "sufficient information to show this. Court by clear and convincing evidence there is a strong possibility trial counsel was ineffective for failing to utilize or identify the complained of evidence". Seq, Rule 3.11(B)(8)(6)G).