Court Opinion

ID: 9562813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:34:03.474405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:32.403267
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
While I agree that appellant Green’s sentence should be affirmed, I must dissent to the modification of appellant Parker’s sentence for two reasons.
First, in Brewer v. State, supra, this Court clearly stated that the procedures enunciated therein were to be applied prospectively:
We therefore hold that the following procedure must be the procedure concerning the State’s allegation of 21 O.S.1981, § 701.12(1) in this and all future .capital cases ... /¿at 63. (Emphasis added). The trial in the instant case was conducted on September 16-21, 1981; whereas, Brew*1046er was decided on August 18, 1982. Therefore, Brewer is inapplicable to the instant case, and the State is not required to “additionally prove that the prior felonies involved the use or threat of violence to the person.”
Second, even assuming that the State failed to prove one of the aggravating circumstances applied to appellant Parker, I am of the opinion that the death sentence should not be invalidated. In Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235, (1983), the United States Supreme Court upheld the sentence of death in a Georgia case where one of the aggravating circumstances, which the jury relied upon, was held to be unconstitutionally vague. The United States Supreme Court accepted the view of the Georgia Supreme Court and stated:
We accept that court’s view that the subsequent invalidation of one of several statutory aggravating circumstances does not automatically require reversal of the death penalty, having been assured that a death sentence will be set aside if the invalidation of an aggravating circumstance makes the penalty arbitrary or capricious.
Clearly, the death penalty in the instant case was not imposed arbitrarily. The ap- • pellants, both convicted felons, serving time in the penitentiary at the time of the slaying, viciously stabbed the victim sixteen (16) times, severely mutilating his body, and then ruthlessly slashed his throat.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the sentence of death should be affirmed for both appellants.